I haven't read much about Hiss though I have run across his name before and was vaguely familiar with him. The book tells the story and then talks about why and how Hiss could have chosen the course that he took. Betraying his country and then lying about it for years. The author does make the case that Hiss was guilty of perjury (lying to Congress about his activities as a communist spy) and his underlying even worse conduct of passing on state secrets and giving aid to the Soviets. The author deals with the why of Hiss's actions during the time he was committing treason and on why he continued to maintain his innocence for decades when Hiss would have known he was guilty. Basically he thought communism was a beneficial system and that committing crimes in order to create the communist utopia was morally appropriate even it meant doing morally wrong things to get there. This included treason, passing on the secrets of the atom bomb, and state plans.

The difference this made a Yalta is really incalculable. The shape of Europe after WWII was crafted based on decisions at Yalta where Hiss attended and passed on US plans to the Russians.

There is some political weighing that takes place in this book as the author airs her opinions about right and left in the US. However, it ties in with the story fairly well. McCarthyism is dealt with and the author does not defend McCarthyism but she decries the unfortunate result of McCarthyism where many people still remain unaware of the depth of penetration and influence the Soviets had in US government in the 20s, 30s and into WWII.
( )

What drew me to this book was not a rehash of the question of Alger Hiss’s guilt but the more intriguing and still open question of why Hiss so vigorously maintained his innocence. Post self-professed liberal Susan Jacoby’s book “Alger Hiss and the Battle for History” declaring that today almost no one on the left believes Hiss was innocent it was probably inevitable that someone of a more conservative persuasion would weigh in on the topic. Christina Shelton has stepped into the fray and her book is surprising on many fronts.

Shelton, a former Soviet analyst, has a distinctly anti-communist nearly neo-con point of view. (She doesn’t claim to be unbiased and that works for me just as it did for Jacoby’s book.) The first surprise is that Shelton actually met Hiss and found him to be pleasant company. The second is that Shelton goes to greater lengths that even the most pro-Hiss books to present a him as a caring, three dimensional human being. For the first time in reading nearly two dozen books on the case I got a sense of a man who could inspire such devotion and loyalty. I also encountered someone whose concern for his fellow man could make the hope presented by socialism/communism appealing.

A less pleasing surprise are Shelton’s blanket statements about the “failure” of socialism and the refusal of American universities to admit that communism wasn’t such a great idea in practice. I wouldn’t argue that communism was thriving but there’s a world of difference between a Social Democrat in Sweden and Leonid Breshnev. Shelton is on firmer ground laying out the similarities between Stalinism and Fascism, but while demolishing a retrospective claim that Hiss was doing good by supporting Stalin against Hitler this isn’t hugely additive.

Shelton does an admirable job of assembling all the evidence against Hiss. It isn’t thrilling reading but it is comprehensive. In it’s totality it is compelling. Also compelling is Shelton’s thesis that Hiss maintained his claim to innocence because it was more useful to the cause of communism than an open embrace of his beliefs. Shelton’s version of Hiss is much more appealing (and human) than the dissembler (he’s a master spy!) of Allen Weinstein’s Perjury or the serial-deceiver (he just plain likes to lie!) of Edward White’s Looking Glass Wars or the cold-fish (he’s a jerk!) – all worthy, readable books that have their place.

Taken as a whole Shelton’s book makes a contribution but it’s not for everyone. I got the feeling that she’d like those who supported Hiss for decades to admit they were had but that’s not likely to happen and, for me, it’s beside the point. Recommended for anyone very interested in the Hiss case but not as the first book on the subject. ( )