To call this an "academic debate" at this point is pointless. The behavior of Ron Radosh, in particular, reminds me more of a mafia kingpin eliminating gangland rivals than of a dispassionate analyst clarifying the historical record. It's out of hand.
It turns out Conrad Black has a new criticism up at National Review, "Defaming FDR," and Radosh was quick to send Diana a "collegial email" to give her the heads up:
Diana responds here, "Another Day, Another Attack on American Betrayal."
Plus, it turns out David Horowitz pulled out the big guns for another shot on Diana at Diana. See the big piece from John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr, at FrontPage, "Was Harry Hopkins a Soviet Spy?"
It took me a little while to get through that one, it's so detailed. It's very scholarly though, and completely avoids ad hominem arguments, and is thus a vast improvement over the harsh screeds Radosh has been blasting.
And finally, Robert Stacy McCain jumped back into the debate, "Major Jordan, Carroll Reece, Birchers, Buckley and the Attack on Diana West":
I lamented this controversy when it first arose, and declared myself committed to defending Diana West, and remain resolute. Radosh and Horowitz say that they have serious reasons as conservatives for their crusade against American Betrayal, and despite my general admiration for their work, I think they are misguided in this effort.RTWT.
Whatever West’s errors, she doesn’t deserve this treatment, and I think serious people need to ask what could be so dangerous about West’s book that it has engendered such extreme hostility.