books, such as Pius XII and the SecondrnWorld War by Pierre Blet, S.J., and ThernLast Three Popes and the jews by PinchasrnLapide. He has done Httle (if any) originalrnwork or real synthesis, and his book isrntoo hurriedly composed to be consideredrnscholarship. The Defamation of Pius Xllrnis similar in style to a fundamentalistrnChristian pamphlet, decrying in shrillrnterms the fallacies put forth by the enemyrncamp. His facts are correct, but his stylernand approach are disconcerting.rnI wish that Dr. Mclnerny had presentedrnhis argument in a more balanced andrnscholarly fashion, while using some primaryrntexts to defend the only man whornstood up to both Hider and Stalin.rnMsgr. Stephen M. DiGiovanni holds arndoctorate in ecclesiastical history from thernPontifical Gregorian University in Romernand is the author, most recently, of PiusrnXII and the Jews: The War Years, asrnReported by the New York Times, whichrncan be found at Voyagesrnby Myles KantorrnCommies: A Journey Through thernOld Left, the New Left, and thernLeftover Leftrnby Ronald RadoshrnSan Francisco: Encounter Press;rn216 pp., $24.95rnOur ideas had consequences,”rnobserves Ronald Radosh, distinguishedrnhistorian of the American left,rnechoing the quite un-radical RichardrnWeaver. The party of which Radosh wasrna member for most of his life conventionallyrnis portrayed as an idealistic band inrnpursuit of a more humane America. Yes,rnits apologists admit, the left has erredrnfrom time to time —not from any intrinsicrnmalice, but in the flawed execution ofrna noble creed. If, however, the author ofrnCommies proves nothing else, he demonstratesrnthat the left has always been a systematicallyrnilliberal campaign of subversion,rnoperating in concert with thernworld’s most rogue regimes.rnRadosh’s radical bona fides are impeccable.rnOf leftist parentage and related tornthe anarchist Jacob Abrams {ofAhrams v.rnUnited States notoriety), Radosh wasrnreared as a Red Diaper Baby in the de factornSoviet colony of New York City. Atrnone point, he lived in the same buildingrnas “the notorious Soviet atom-bomb spy”rnTed Hall. “My block. West 172nd Streetrnand Fort Washington Avenue,” he writes,rn”was also a stronghold of numerous otherrnCommunists.” Radosh experienced hisrnindoctrination in the radical agenda inrnboth recreational and pedagogical settings.rnAt Camp Woodland in Phoenicia,rnNew York, where he sang Maoist anthems,rna pair of Creek communists recruitedrnhim for the Labor Youth Leaguern(a branch of the Communist Party).rnFor commencement speaker at ElisabethrnIrwin High School (the “Little RedrnSchoolhouse”), Radosh’s class chosernW.E.B. Du Bois, an apologist for Stalin.rnThe Labor Youth League furnished “arnready-made community” of radicals atrnthe University of Wisconsin-Madison.rnRadosh thrived among his collegiaterncomrades, infiltrating campus organizationsrnand doing battle against Madisonrnresidents. Khrushchev’s 1956 disclosurernof Stalin’s atrocities did not weaken hisrncommitment to the cause. Indeed, so intensernwas Radosh’s radical faith that hernjoined the Communist Party after the SovietrnUnion invaded Hungary. (Radoshrnreturned to Madison to pursue his doctoralrnstudies with eminent revisionist historianrnWilliam Appleman Williams.)rnAscent to the upper echelon, if not thernvanguard, of the New Left followed.rnAmong other significant experiences, Radoshrntook a podium by force at an antiwarrnrally, joined Michael Harrington tornvisit Michael Mauley in Jamaica, and disquietedrnTom Hayden with a critical reviewrnof The American Future. He was alsorna cofounder of Studies on the Left andrnlater served on the editorial board of Dissent.rnIn this latter capacity, he “becamerndeeply involved in setting the tone for thernnation’s major democratic-socialist intellectualrnjournal.”rnRadosh’s eventual disillusionment beganrnon a trip to Cuba in the early I970’s.rnFor leftists, Cuba generally and FidelrnCastro in particular were the incarnationrnof their vision: “He was the first true NewrnLeft revolutionary, a man who would notrncompromise, a man who promised andrnwould build a humanist revolution thatrnwould be truly democratic —not Red; notrnRed, White, and Blue; but guerrillarngreen.” What Radosh encountered,rnhowever, failed to confirm his preconceptionsrnof the Cuban paradise: psychiatricrnabuse including mass lobotomies,rnprevalent penury, totalitarian puritanismrn—in short, the Procrustean obscenityrnof an omnipotent regime. Whenrnhe criticized these conditions during hisrnstay and in a subsequent article, Radosh’srncomrades excoriated his deviation fromrnthe herd. As one of them explained, “Wernhave to understand that there are differencesrnbetween capitalist lobotomies andrnsocialist lobotomies.”rnBecoming convinced of Julius Rosenberg’srnguilt demolished another, morernpersonal, sacred cow. “In my youth,” Radoshrnobserves, “the passion of Julius andrnEthel Rosenberg was the great cause thatrnwedded me to the Left.” He was a participantrnin pro-Rosenberg rallies as an adolescentrnand shared an alma mater (ElisabethrnIrwin) with their sons. Thus,rnRadosh leapt at the opportunity to vindicaternthe Rosenbergs when their sons establishedrnthe National Committee to Re-rnOpen the Rosenberg Case. In fact, thisrnexculpatory purpose paved the way to hisrnconclusion that Julius Rosenberg committedrnespionage. The left’s vitiiolic receptionrnof The Rosenberg File (coauthoredrnwith Joyce Milton) prompted arnwatershed introspection: “Although I didn’trnwant to be excommunicated from thernchurch of the Left where I had worshippedrnall of my life, I had in fact startedrnto question the whole project of thernLeft.”rnA second disillusionment abroad completedrnthe destruction of his faith. DanielrnOrtega and the Sandinista revolutionrnwere the radical toast of the 1980’s, muchrnas Castro and the Cuban revolution hadrnbeen in preceding decades. The left mistookrnthe displacement of an authoritarianrnregime —Fulgencio Batista’s in Cuba,rnAnastasio Somoza’s in Nicaragua—as therncoming of free governance. But Radoshrnbecame increasingly averse to Somoza’srnsuccessors on his trips to Nicaragua.rnBianca Jagger apprised him of the newrnregime’s expropriations, and Daniel Ortegarndefended the turbas divinas (“divinernmobs”) deployed to suppress dissidents,rnwhile wihiessing Nicaraguan peasants inrnrefugee camps convinced Radosh thatrn”Sandinista power in Nicaragua had to bernended.” Radosh bade an implicit farewellrnto his former comrades and their willfulrnblindness in an essay written after Ortega’srn1990 electoral defeat, an event thatrnbrought his “long exile from America” torna close.rnRadosh’s account of his radical voyagesrnmaintains a quiet profundity andrnSEPTEMBER 2001/29rnrnrn