Perjury [Paperback]

Professor Weinstein creates a problem for the history student in the introduction: he declares Hiss guilty as charged. Even the prosecutor in the first trial told the jury that if they didn't believe Whittaker Chambers they could not convict Hiss. Despite the mound of detail the whole case essentially was about which of the protagonists was telling the truth. By his declaration Weinstein immediately brands Hiss a liar. No doubt he would say that he reached that conclusion after careful analysis of all the facts as he saw them; I doubt that he reached that conclusion after completing the manuscript. Unfortunately, that means that the actual narrative had to be written to that end. The story is awash with incident remembered on both sides from many years before; much of the detail is straight from the mouth of Chambers (a proven perjurer)whom Weinstein implies from the start is truthful. What chance then does Hiss have as Weinstein actually writes his book believing him to be untruthful and thus untrustworthy and a traitor to boot? The even hand of the impartial historian never appears because we know at the outset that Weinstein disbelieves Hiss's attempts to defend himself and has no logical choice when writing other than to be sceptical and questioning of Hiss whilst being supportive of Chambers.

Professor Weinstein apparently originally thought Hiss innocent and came to the task with that view. Perhaps it would be unjust to take his stated position as a disingenuous attempt to appear fair minded post publication. If nothing else it shows without doubt that he certainly did not start the job with a professional historians 'clean slate.'

In 1971, Hiss made a mistake almost as large: he let an honest man look at his defense files. Historian Allen Weinstein had previously believed that Hiss was innocent. But when he read what Hiss's lawyers said in private, and what FBI agents had written J. Edgar Hoover, he found there was no reasonable doubt possible anymore. Hiss had spied for the Soviets, and Chambers had usually told the truth to the best of his ability. Chambers had sometimes lied, but only when he attempted to minimize Hiss's guilt -- and his own, for Chambers had secrets about himself to protect, and a well founded fear of being the messenger killed for bearing bad news.

PERJURY is a fascinating account of two complex men, best friends who became mortal enemies when one split with Stalinism, and the other remained faithful. The lives of Alger Hiss and Whittaker Chambers would have been interesting even if they had never met or publicly clashed. Their long duel caught them in "A tradegdy of History," as Chambers put it. PERJURY tells that story better than anyone before or since. It's a masterpiece of historical detective work.

When it was published originally, all but the die hard apologists for Stalinism conceded Hiss's guilt. The new edition has recently released material from the National Security Agency's Venona decryptions, and the KGB's Moscow files that destroy even the unreasonable doubts. Highest recommendation.