Wow, this was quite a book! It is also a rather large book; both in its scope, and its length - the version I read was almost 500 pages long.

Warning: This review is also going to be quite long.

Author Diane West lays out a story of American appeasement to the Stalinist Communist regime, seemingly under the guise of diplomacy, but actually with more nefarious underpinnings; namely Communist (and sympathizer) infiltration in the upper echelons of American government, media, and other upper strat

Wow, this was quite a book! It is also a rather large book; both in its scope, and its length - the version I read was almost 500 pages long.

Warning: This review is also going to be quite long.

Author Diane West lays out a story of American appeasement to the Stalinist Communist regime, seemingly under the guise of diplomacy, but actually with more nefarious underpinnings; namely Communist (and sympathizer) infiltration in the upper echelons of American government, media, and other upper strata of American society. This is the central theme of the book.

She uses the term "The Big Lie" many times in this book. "The Big Lie" refers to the false narrative that was propagated, both in the appeasement, and the non-rejection of Communism and Stalin's Russia, as well as in the contemporary sense to talk about ignorance to political Islam and the doctrine of Jihad.

West makes quite a lot of incredible claims in "American Betrayal":



Many levels of the US government were infiltrated by either direct Communist supporters, sympathizers, "fellow travelers", and/or direct spies for the Soviet Union: This is a theme she plays out during the entire book. She provides data and arguments for her thesis; accusing many people by name.

Obama is a socialist: I found this one a bit of a stretch, tbh. She is a staunch anti-Communist (not that there's anything wrong with that), but I think that clouds her objectivity at times.

The American WW2 era "Lend-Lease" program diverted much-needed war materiel from American bases, and gave them to Stalinist Russia instead : She mentions this at many points in the book as well. I'm not sure I agree with her reasoning, however. She is putting forward the theory that America gave billions of dollars of aid to the USSR due to a shadowy conspiracy led by Roosevelt's closest advisor, Harry Hopkins, to funnel this war materiel at Stalin's behest.

She doesn't seem to give credence to another simple theory; that America and the Allies were terrified of facing Hitler's battle-hardened Wehrmacht Army, and were sending supplies to Stalin so he could wear them down on the Eastern Front before they invaded.

She mentions repeatedly how many tanks, Jeeps, money, and other supplies the US sent to Russia, but doesn't mention that Great Britain was the largest recipient of this Lend-Lease materiel; having received some ~$30 billion USD, compared to Russia's ~$10 billion USD.

Harry Hopkins: As mentioned above, is a central figure of the book. She accuses him of being a secret Soviet agent and Communist/Communist sympathizer, although never produces any concrete evidence for this accusation.

*The biggest accusation in the book*: Is that Hopkins funneled American nuclear secrets and blueprints to Moscow via the Lend-Lease flights. She cites her source and goes over his eyewitness account. I'm not sure what to make of the veracity of this claim. I'm not sure why anyone in the upper echelons of the US government would so willingly hand over the key to their global military supremacy. She asserts that Hopkins was responsible, since his allegiances supposed lay in pleasing Stalin.

I read in another book that the Soviets learned how to build the bomb after reading the American book: "Atomic Energy for Military Purposes", published in 1945, so I'm not sure what to make of this allegation. It sounds like the US should have protected this information a little better, in any case.

D-Day landings and Stalin: She claims that the decision to set the Allied landings of D Day in northern France was suspicious, as it would leave the Balkans open to Russian military expansion, and post-war Soviet takeover of much of Eastern Europe. She claims that there was a conspiracy that ran counter to many American generals' advice, to pull troops out of the south of Italy, and then re-land them in northern France at a later date. The Allies should have done more to make sure Stalin could not expand westward. By working to oppose one dystopian regime, the Allies directly supported and enabled a much larger, and more monstrous beast.

The War could have been ended in ~1942: She claims that the Allies' policy of asking for unconditional surrender from Germany, coupled with the refusal to negotiate with Hitler to end the war, as well as ignoring the German Resistance operating at the time, ensured that the War would go on for another ~3 years, and claim hundreds of thousands more dead. By trying to force an unconditional surrender on Germany, the Germans resorted to suicidal fanaticism in the end. Their last surge that was The Battle of the Bulge in the Ardennes cost tens of thousands of American lives might have been avoided if unconditional surrender was not forced upon them.

I'm not sure what to make of these claims, to be honest. I'm not sure negotiating with Hitler would have done anything. Hitler was not an honest interlocutor, as Neville Chamberlain discovered back before the War began. I'm also not sure that Hitler would have accepted a conditional surrender, either, as he was known for ordering many of his field marshals and generals to fight and die to the last man, when retreat was clearly a better strategic objective. Also, instead of trying to flee like many other top Nazis, he stayed in Berlin until the end, and ultimately took his own life. These don't sound like the actions of someone who would have accepted a surrender on any terms.

American POWs left behind the Iron Curtain: She details how approximately 20,000 American POWs were left to die in Russian Gulags after the Second World War wrapped up, and virtually no effort was made from the American Government to repatriate their troops. She cites a telegraph to Stalin at the time, from Roosevelt on March 17, 1945, asking about the American POWs. Apparently this issue was never addressed by Stalin, and the troops languished and died. She claims that as of 1992, some American POWs were still imprisoned in Soviet Gulags. I can't imagine the horror of being interned in a Soviet Gulag for decades, always awaiting some magical day that would never come, and having to face up to the fact that your country has abandoned you. This was the most damning part of the book, to me. Unbelievably horrible...

The Allies didn't stop Auschwitz: She mentions this near the end of the book. She claims that Allied bombers were operating directly in the area of the Auschwitz compound, but neglected to destroy either the camp infrastructure, or the train tracks leading to the camps. The implication is that the Americans didn't care about saving the European Jews. I'm not sure what to make of this claim, as I have heard contradictory narratives forwarded in other books I have read.



"American Betrayal" also features much talk about another "Big Lie"; that of the narrative of Islam being a "Religion of Peace". She mentions how this narrative forwarded to the public runs directly contrary to the truth of the matter. Namely, we are told that Islam is a peaceful religion; while tens of thousands of jihadist attacks have occurred worldwide in the last two decades alone. She writes that the doctrines of Islam are inherently political, and aggressively expansionist, with ambitions of world-wide supremacy. She compares the totalitarian, collectivist nature of Islam with Communism. I agree 100%.

It is refreshing to hear a modern writer speak with such clarity on Islamic jihad, and not bow to the PC mob that will surely be outraged by this frankness. She is to be highly commended for her courage in speaking to an issue that most drop like a hot potato.



This was a pretty epic book, and West is a very competent writer. The book contains many quotables. I'm not sure what to make of some of her claims here, but I found the writing very-interesting, nonetheless, and many of her points to be well-argued.

I would recommend this book to history fans, as its contrarian narrative is sure to stir up some discussion...

4.5 stars, rounded up to 5 stars.