in turn led to his being “eased out” of thenState Department the following year.nWeinstein cites recently declassifiednmemoranda indicating that by the springnof 1946, nearly all of the Department’snsecurity people suspected Hiss of involvementnin some sort of Communist undercovernwork.nOne of Weinstein’s biggest finds, however,ncame from his interview with Czechnhistorian Karel Kaplan. Kaplan had beenna member of the Dubcek government’sn1968 commission that delved into thenpurge trials of the late Stalin era. In thatncapacity, he read the interrogations ofnNoel and Herta Field by Czech and Hungariannsecurity officials. Field was anothernState Department plant who had fled tonPrague with his wife when the case broke.nBoth Fields named Hiss as a fellownagent.nWeinstein’s research also led him tondiscount theories that the FBI or somenother favorite villain had used the Woodstockntypewriter to frame Hiss. Nothingnhe uncovered in the FBI files gave anyncredence whatsoever to this possibility.nOn the other hand, the Hiss files yieldednevidence of a deliberate attempt to keepnthe whereabouts of the machine fromnthe authorities.nThe Hisses were evasive in respondingnto the FBI and Grand Jury probes thatnfollowed Chambers’ production of thendocuments in November of 1948. Priscillancould not recall the make of theirnold typewriter and Alger volunteered thatnit had “possibly” been an Underwood.nMore suspicious were Alger’s contradictorynstatements as to what had becomenof the machine. On three separate occasions,nbetween December 10 andnDecember 15, he told the Grand Jurynthat he had absolutely no recollection ofnits disposal. But on December 4, he hadntold the FBI that Priscilla had sold it to ansecond-hand dealer “sometime subsequentnto 1938.”nAgain, Hiss was covering up. Accordingnto a letter found by Weinstein, Hissncalled one of his lawyers on December 7nto tell him that he remembered givingnthe Woodstock to the son of his formern18 inChronicles of Culturenhousemaid, Claudia Catlett. Thus, whilenthe FBI combed the Washington junkyardsnand second-hand stores in a vainnsearch for the typewriter. Hiss’s brothernDonald successfully traced it with thenCatletts help. He did not, however,ninform even the Hiss defense that henknew where it could be found. Instead,nanother lawyer recovered the machinenafter an independent search. Given thenfacts, Weinstein concludes that if thenWoodstock were ever used in a conspiracynagainst Hiss, the most likely conspiratorsnwould be the maid’s son and his ownnbrother.nIn the concluding chapters of his book,nWeinstein discusses what he calls thenHiss-Chambers “iconography.” The casenwas a pivotal event of our time: itnconvinced a stunned nation of a domesticnCommunist threat, it set the stage fornJoe McCarthy, and it boosted the careernof Richard Nixon through his role asnchief inquisitor in the HUAC hearings.nFor this reason, its political significancenquickly overshadowed the centralnquestion of whether or not Hiss wasnguilty. The important difference, impliesnWeinstein, is that while the conservativesninitially turned the faci of Hiss’s guilt tontheir advantage, the liberals eventuallynturned the myifo of his innocence tontheirs.nAs the confident anti-communism ofnthe 1950’s gave way to the self-doubt ofnCommendablesnVietnam and Watergate, so did publicnopinion waver on the issue of Alger Hiss.nThe fall of his old nemesis Nixon, andnthe numerous exposes that accompaniednit, revived interest in his case and madenplausible the assertion that he, too, hadnbeen the victim of “dirty tricks.”nOnce more. Hiss found himself innvogue. He was interviewed in RollingnStone by his son Tony, he published anself-serving article on the Op Ed page ofnthe New York Times, and he enjoyedngreat demand as a speaker on collegencampuses and at left-wing political rallies.nIn 1975, the Supreme Judicial Court ofnMassachusetts voted unanimously tonreadmit him to the state bar, the firstnlawyer ever to be so readmitted followingna major criminal conviction. Had it notnbeen for Dr. Weinstein’s book, he mightnnow be the subject of one of those TVn”docu-dramas” of which historical revisionistsnare so fond.nA.t this writing, Hiss continues tonproclaim himself innocent of all charges,nand vows that he will carry on thenstruggle to clear his name. AllennWeinstein’s scholarship and integritynappear to have dealt a mortal blow to hisncampaign for vindication. But one shouldnnever underestimate the liberal geniusnfor turning the reflections from fun housenmirrors into a never-ending saga of anfellow-traveler’s honorableness. DnOld Tired Men and Shabby IdeasnJohn Lukacs: 1945: Year Zero;nDoubleday & Co., Inc.;nGarden City, New York.nby David PietruszanCertain dates jump out at you fromnthe pages of history—1066, 1776,n1789, 1914. John Lukacs, one ofnAmerica’s premier practicing histor-nMr Pietrusza is a writer and reviewer,nwell-known to the readers of nonliberalnjournals.nnnians, contends that 1945 should also benconsidered as one of the key dates innhuman progress. For it was then thatnthe traditional European state systemngave way to a newglobal hegemony rulednby two non-European powers, the UnitednStates and the Soviet Union.nIt was a year dominated by personalities—Hitler,nStalin, Churchill,nRoosevelt and Truman—and Lukacs’nprose portraits of each are revealing andninsightful. The virtually omnipotentnRoosevelt’s vision was muddied and con-n