Miller did not assert that Hiss was completelyncandid in his testimony and allowednthat the physical evidence wasndiflScult to explain.nThe Hiss case was a major politicalncontroversy and the occasion for particularlynbitter debates between anticommunistnliberals and their Popular Frontnopponents. Although many liberals camento accept Hiss’s guilt, a large segment ofnAmerican liberalism insisted (and stiUninsists) on Hiss’s innocence. As editor ofnThe New Republic, Straight was in a keynposition to contribute to a healthy debatenon the Chambers-Hiss affair, and hisnknowledge of Soviet espion^e gave him anspecial ability to interpret the controversynfor his liberal readers. He Med to do so.nStraight’s feilure, however, does notnindicate that the anticommunist convictionsnhe claimed in 1948 were insincere.nFor example. Straight and his journal didnattack Wallace and the Progressive Party.nBut Straight and The New Reptdjlic appearednmore concerned with the potentialnof the cases to discredit liberalnDemocrats than with the truth of thenissue raised or the problem of communistnespionage. In its initial story after Hissnwas convicted, The New Republic devotednmore space to the political implicationsnof the conviction than to othernissues involved. Complained The NewnRepublic “the extreme Right of the RepublicannParty is jubilant. The politicalnelement personified by RepresentativenRichard M. Nixon (Calif ) scarcely waitednfor the courtroom to clear before capitalizingnon the verdict.” Earlier, whennthe Hiss case first became public, Straigjitnwrote that “grave as the charges are innthis case, America is once again in graverndanger fi-om the accusers than firom thenaccused.” And when Dr. Klaus Fuchs, anphysicist who worked on the atomicnbomb, confessed that he had spied fornthe Soviet Union, The New Republicnlamented that he gave “new fiiel to thenloyalty-testers and witch-hunters, in andnout of Congress.”nStraight feared the dams^e that mightnbe done both to civil liberties and to then28inChronicles of Cultttrenelectoral prospects of liberal Democrats.nHe made The New Republic into a persistentncritic of “McCarthyism.” The spacendevoted to attacking McCarthyism exceedednmany times the space given thenHiss-Chambers and similar cases. Straightnwas an anticommunist when he editednThe New Republic, but he was first anhighly partisan liberal Democrat. He regardednrevelations about Soviet spyingnand communists in high places as ammunitionnfor those who would discreditnliberalism and preferred to depreciatenthe importance of the Hiss-ChambersnKilled by KindnessnDrew Middleton: Crossroads ofnModem Warfare; Doubleday; NewnYork.nby Stephen J. SniegoskinAccording to what currentiy passesnas the conventional wisdom (left-liberal,nof course), peace is the normal conditionnof mankind and war is a primitive,nirrational aberration. Military force, it isnalleged, does not decide anything; whatnis important is the art of persuasion andneconomic plenty. From these assumptions,nit is argued that the United Statesncannot prevent the victory of pro-Sovietncommunism in Central America or anywherenelse by military means, but cannonly do so by promoting social changenand providing economic largess. Moreover,nthe United States should dismantlenits defense establishment and redirectnthose resources to the “real” socialwel&renneeds of both Americans andnthe people of the world. The question ofnwhether a defenseless country will continuento exist is not addressed.nAs is usually the case, the conventionalnwisdom is fer off the mark. Even a cursorynsmdy of history shows that warsnhave not only been commonplace (thenDr. Sniegoski is a historian tvith thenFederal governmentnnncase even if doing so required a lack ofncandor.nAlthough Straight failed to use hisnknowledge of Soviet spying to help thenreaders of The New Republic put thenHiss case in perspective, we can be gratefialnthat, even after too long a silence, henhas finally described his own foray intoncommunism and espionage. However,nhis misleading description of what henwrote about the Hiss case suggests thatnhis memoir should be read with a waryneye. Dnpresent is no exception), but that warsnhave been critical in determining mankind’snpolitical institutions and culturalnvalues. The victor in war is able to imposenhis will on the vanquished. Historynis, in a sense, a story of war and its results.nThe critical impact of wars on historynis brought out by Drew Middleton,nmilitary-affiiirs correspondent for thenNew York Times, in Crossroads of ModemnWarfare. This work discusses 16nbattles of the 20th century which the authornconsiders to be the most significantneither in shaping the course of history ornin introducing new military technologynand so revolutionizing the nature of warfare.nThe batdes Middleton selects arenexpected ones, including The Mame,nMidway, Stalingrad, Normandy, DiennBien Phu, TeL One exception is the battienof Imphal-Kohima, which Middletonnacknowledges to be unknown to mostnAmericans. It took place at the border ofnIndia and Burma in early 1944; in it,nBritish and Indian troops utterly smashednthe Japanese, thus preventing their invasionninto India and paving the way forntheir expulsion firom southern Asia.nMiddleton discusses both the strictiynmilitary aspects of these battles and theirnpolitical ramifications. But from thesenvignettes on particular battles a broader,nthough implicit, message on warfare inngeneral emerges. In the discussions ofn