Eugene Lyons was a clever and amusing fellow. Assigned to be a reporter in Moscow during Stalin's rule he broke the mold: he, unlike Walter Duranty of the Times, would tell the truth. Initially attracted to the Great Experiment, Lyons soon learned the misery and death suffered by the eggs broken in Lenin's omelet: the NEP men slaughtered when the New Economic Policy fell from favor, the kulaks liquidated as a class, the Ukraine nearly exterminated. Though tragic, Lyons recounts the times with wit and pathos, and with a grasp of English not unlike a cross between Conrad and Nabakov.

Over sixty years ago, Eugene Lyons--Russian born, American bred--sought to explain just what happened among America's left-wing intellectuals in the previous decade. The thirties were unkind to them, as they started the decade damning such "social fascists" as FDR, voted for Foster and Ford, then, on orders from Moscow, hailed the liberals as allies in the fight against fascism. Ah, but then Stalin signed a pact with fascism--so back went Franklin to the vituperation pile. (Eleanor was OK.) The war brought about some changes: it was "imperialist," and so resistance to Hitler was out of fashion (a word Hellman would disengenuously use later). The Hollywood Anti-Nazi Committee changed its name to something less provocative; those who had whooped for the purge trials moved onto calling for strikes in defense industries. The yanks weren't coming, they said. Then Hitler broke the treaty. The change was immediate. Suddenly the yanks WERE coming, if the intellectualoids of the left had anything to say. Supporting all this, driving this, in fact, were those Hollywood Ten types the left love to tell us were just "activists," persecuted innocents. These innocents sided with Stalin and, for a time, Hitler. (Think about that the next time you laud such people.) This book is a true classic. It's erudite and witty style makes the subject anything but dry. This book is a must for conservatives--and liberals who wish to be truly iconoclastic.

I shouldn't really dedicate much time to writing a review about an out-of-print book, but if for some reason, this book is republished, people should be aware how poor this biography is.

I understand that biographers often admire their subjects, but Lyons goes beyond admiration into straight worship. Herbert Hoover, in his biography, is a man without flaws and probably the greatest man who ever lived. This bias is evident on almost every page and makes for bad writing.

Herbert Hoover may be underrated in history, or have a worse reputation than he deserves, but he is not as great as Lyons portrays him. By deifying Hoover, Lyons actually comes off somewhat like a defense lawyer trying to canonize a client. Throught the book, Lyons distorts the truth and avoids certain facts if they could possibly show Hoover in an unfavorable light.

In addition to bad writing, this book doesn't even contain an index and the few photos are without captions or context. I've read many historical biographies before, and this is one of the worst. If you are interested in Herbert Hoover, skip this book; they may be hard-to-find, but there are more objective books out there.

Was Herbert Hoover an unequivocal saint? He was, if you ask this biographer. Not only were his motives always pure, honest, and honorable, but his abilities unmatched. If only his political rivals had simply crowned him King and allowed him to run things as he wished, we'd never have had the Great Depression, and if they'd failed to do so until it started, he could still have ended it sooner and less painfully if only vicious, unscrupulous opponents hadn't refused to follow his wise advice. The closest Lyons is able to come to saying anything bad about Hoover is to admit that he wasn't a good politician, a perfect example of praising with faint damns.

Now, granted, Hoover was unfairly tarred with the responsibility for many of the terrible things that happened "on his watch", things that can in no way be attributed to any action of his, and which he couldn't possibly have prevented. Writing in 1964, Lyons, an admitted Hoover supporter and admirer, was attempting to counter years of unfair negative image, and I'll admit that it's interesting to hear the other side. But even he admits that he overdoes it; in his final subchapter, he says as much:

"It is altogether likely that in these pages I have been betrayed by ardor into overstatement...(r)eading reams of unconscionable spite aimed at Hoover...one is driven to compensatory bias in his favor."

Understandable, and if all you've ever heard of Hoover is the negatives, it might be worth reading this book for a counterweight. But if you do, be aware that that is what it is: a counterweight to negative bias. It is most assuredly NOT a balanced, evenhanded historical document. Which is a shame, because it's hard enough to find biographies of Hoover that it would be nice if this one were more worthwhile. It reads like the biographies written for young people of our founding fathers, in which Washington, or Franklin, or some other such historical character, is portrayed as a larger-than-life, perfect hero, the kind of biographies that lose their appeal once one is over the age of ten or so.