News flash (to the Left): Rosenbergs were spies
posted at 1:40 pm on September 17, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The case of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg has for decades served as a cautionary tale told by the Left about Communist hysteria. Executed as Soviet spies, the popular mythology paints the pair as merely ardent liberals unfairly framed and prosecuted by a paranoid American establishment. Their family and friends have maintained this position even after the release of the Venona messages made it clear that Julius, at least, operated as a Soviet spy.
Now one of their co-defendants and close friends has finally confirmed what everyone else knew — that Julius Rosenberg spied for the Soviet Union:
Julius and [E]thel Rosenberg were executed 55 years ago, on June 19, 1953. But last week, they were back in the headlines when Morton Sobell, the co-defendant in their famous espionage trial, finally admitted that he and his friend, Julius, had both been Soviet agents.
It was a stunning admission; Sobell, now 91 years old, had adamantly maintained his innocence for more than half a century. After his comments were published, even the Rosenbergs’ children, Robert and Michael Meeropol, were left with little hope to hang on to — and this week, in comments unlike any they’ve made previously, the brothers acknowledged having reached the difficult conclusion that their father was, indeed, a spy. “I don’t have any reason to doubt Morty,” Michael Meeropol told Sam Roberts of the New York Times.
With these latest events, the end has arrived for the legions of the American left wing that have argued relentlessly for more than half a century that the Rosenbergs were victims, framed by a hostile, fear-mongering U.S. government. Since the couple’s trial, the left has portrayed them as martyrs for civil liberties, righteous dissenters whose chief crime was to express their constitutionally protected political beliefs. In the end, the left has argued, the two communists were put to death not for spying but for their unpopular opinions, at a time when the Truman and Eisenhower administrations were seeking to stem opposition to their anti-Soviet foreign policy during the Cold War.
The Meeropols have a better case with their mother, although not to dispute her own work as a Soviet spy. Ronald Radosh notes that grand-jury testimony unsealed last week shows strong indications that the testimony of Ruth Greenglass — that Ethel had typed the messages Julius sent to his Soviet handlers — was likely concocted. That had been suspected for decades, and represents a black mark on the prosecutors that handled the case. The Venona messages indicate that Ethel knew about her husband’s work, but apparently do not indicate how much she participated in it.
Radosh also makes a good point about Joseph McCarthy, the demagogue who exploited the real danger of Soviet espionage for cheap political gain. It’s true that the danger was real. It’s equally true that McCarthy seriously undermined the effort to defend against it by making wild, unsupportable accusations. He turned the legitimate anti-Communist effort into a farcical witch hunt, and in doing so, made this country much less safe. Venona gave some on the Right the hugely mistaken idea of attempting to rehabilitate McCarthy.
(An aside: Some Hollywood “historians” make McCarthy the villain not just of his jeremiads against the State Department and the Army, but also against Hollywood. That’s not accurate. The effort to root out Communist “sympathizers” in the entertainment industry came from the House Un-American Activities Committee, or HUAC. Senator McCarthy never sat on this committee, nor did the committee impose the “blacklist”; that came from studio executives, under tremendous political pressure to clean out Communists.)
It’s time for all the myths to end. The Soviets presented a grave danger to this nation, and the Rosenbergs were a large part of their assault on America. Their continued enshrinement as martyrs to free political thought insults both history and the intelligence of this nation.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
I’m sorry, I wasn’t aware that anyone other than the most feverish of leftists was still deluding themself otherwise.
Kensington on September 17, 2008 at 1:42 PM
NOOOO I can’t believe it the Gov. got something right???
tee866 on September 17, 2008 at 1:43 PM
you know Hollywood…this would make a Great Movie!
perhaps new conservative hollywood emerging will do it. some stuff in Coulters book, “Treason”, would make for great film and she already gave the proper title.
jp on September 17, 2008 at 1:43 PM
In Radical Son, if I remember correctly, David Horowitz said his parents protested on the Rosenberg’s behalf – all the while knowing what they were.
Typical leftists.
capitalist piglet on September 17, 2008 at 1:44 PM
Of course they weren’t ’spies’. Liberals see anyone who works against America as heroes and freedom fighters.
Grafted on September 17, 2008 at 1:44 PM
What is really sad is evidence is not going to sway most of them?
Why let facts get in the way of a good story?
kybowexar on September 17, 2008 at 1:46 PM
New idea for a button: Bring Back HUAC!!
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on September 17, 2008 at 1:47 PM
You calling M. Stanton Evans a liar?
Sammy316 on September 17, 2008 at 1:48 PM
When they were executed did their eyeballs pop out and explode?
Coronagold on September 17, 2008 at 1:49 PM
if you ever get a chance, read whittaker Chamber’s book…Witness I believe it is called. I read it a long time ago, its a great book about the whole Hiss affair. He worked at the national review when it started, and mentored Buckley.
right4life on September 17, 2008 at 1:50 PM
Doy!
Weebork on September 17, 2008 at 1:51 PM
The myths won’t end because the lefties still pine for the Soviet Union; in their minds, no crime was committed.
Bishop on September 17, 2008 at 1:51 PM
Oh the good old days when traitors were executed. Now, they run for president.
saved on September 17, 2008 at 1:52 PM
My lesbian commie constitutional law professor needs to be placed on a suicide watch.
flyfisher on September 17, 2008 at 1:52 PM
The socialists still use this self protection tactic to this very day!!! Stupid people still buy into it.
allrsn on September 17, 2008 at 1:53 PM
“Witness I believe it is called”
correct — referenced by ann in treason iirc as well …
/too bad chambers didn’t live to see the venona files opened — COMPLETELY proving him right on hiss, the rosenbergs, etc.
Buckaroo on September 17, 2008 at 1:53 PM
I don’t regret what they did. I feel the Rosenbergs didn’t do enough.
/bill ayers
saint kansas on September 17, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Oddly, a very conservative friend of mine recently remarked (when their names came up) that there were “questions” about their guilt or innocence. I was quite surprised to hear the impression he was under. He was receptive to the truth, of course.
capitalist piglet on September 17, 2008 at 1:54 PM
Some people actually thought that they were innocent?
Those must have been the first leading pioneers into the “Troofers” movement..
Chakra Hammer on September 17, 2008 at 1:54 PM
right4life on September 17, 2008 at 1:50 PM
i’ll have to find it, but i have a book called the venona secrets.. a very thick book with all the acual cables included..
I need to think back or find the book, but if i remember correctly, Henry Wallace was a problem too…
stlpatriot on September 17, 2008 at 1:55 PM
Buzz this puppy up!
eforhan on September 17, 2008 at 1:55 PM
NOT POSSIBLE, socialists HATE freedom and therefore ‘freedom fighters’.
I am a freedom fighter and take offense at being tied into the socialist movement.
allrsn on September 17, 2008 at 1:56 PM
As I said in the comments:
Haynes and Klehr’s Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America conclusively proved the Rosenberg’s were guilty as sin. There are a lot of people in academia and the media who own them, and Radosh (among many others), an apology.
I know there is some “confusion” about Ethel, but seriously, she deserved her appointment w/ “Old Sparky” and I have no sympathy for her, or her family, as they milked this for celebrity and fame with the academic left.
PimFortuynsGhost on September 17, 2008 at 1:58 PM
Let’s not forget that prior to the “Blacklist” that all good liberals complain about, there was another blacklist in Hollywood. In the 20’s and 30’s, if you weren’t a communist, it was hard to get work in Hollywood. Much like it is today.
MarkTheGreat on September 17, 2008 at 1:58 PM
owe, not own.
And stlpatriot, I think the Haynes and Klehr book is the one you are looking for. It shows Wallace was dirty, too.
PimFortuynsGhost on September 17, 2008 at 1:59 PM
PimFortuynsGhost on September 17, 2008 at 1:59 PM
i believe you’re correct.. a heartbeat away from the presidency, christ we were close
stlpatriot on September 17, 2008 at 2:01 PM
Of course if you had read the book KGB The Inside Story by Christopher Andrew and Oleg Gordievsky, originally published in 1990, you would have found this on page 315-316 and then again on pages 379 – 380.
Gordievsky was the KGB resident (head of station)in London. He defected in 1985.
Julius Rosenberg was part of an NKGB spy ring in New York.
Just A Grunt on September 17, 2008 at 2:02 PM
I covered this last week. Sobell did an audio interview with the NY Times, and I’m surprised they even mentioned it.
He’s still living in The Bronx. Of course he doesn’t really think he did anything wrong.
JammieWearingFool on September 17, 2008 at 2:02 PM
now i just gotta go diggin for it…
its a good day for alot of people, dead and alive…
stlpatriot on September 17, 2008 at 2:02 PM
Uh Ed, what about this?
So the implication is that Ruth Greenglass lied at the trial in order for her to avoid jail time. Perjury, in pursuit of justice is not ethical. Ruth Greenglass never went to prison, yet her husband did. Both avoided the death penalty. Gee, do you think it was in return for helping to nail the Rosenbergs?
Andy in Agoura Hills on September 17, 2008 at 2:03 PM
I’d like to see this on H&C tonight.
Ed, anyway to get this some TV time?
jimmer on September 17, 2008 at 2:04 PM
More from Gordievsky for you die hards.
pg 380 KGB The Inside Story published 1990.
Just A Grunt on September 17, 2008 at 2:09 PM
My high school US history book, as entertaining as it was to read, suggested that the Rosenbergs were loyal Americans who did their spying in a effort to keep their country from making the mistake of engaging in imperialism.
…
One of the most embarrassing moments in my life that I remember was actually this claim to my father as a teenager.
Count to 10 on September 17, 2008 at 2:10 PM
I found it…
“The Venona Secrets” Exposing Soviet Espionage and America’s Traitors, by Herbert Romerstein and Eric Breindel
515 pages of info, a good read
stlpatriot on September 17, 2008 at 2:12 PM
Communism and Socialism STILL pose an active and direct threat against the security interests of the U.S., both from foreign AND domestic groups. I hope people never forget this!
davenp35 on September 17, 2008 at 2:13 PM
Too bad they did not succeed…………
………. or the higher education establishment.
Seven Percent Solution on September 17, 2008 at 2:15 PM
Leftists play one game, and they play it well.
Obfuscate and deny for as long as you can get away with it.
Count on plenty of aid and comfort from the mindless “open-minded” and the self-congratulating “free-thinkers” who will believe anything.
By the time history judges you, you’ll have accomplished whatever subversive end you had originally had in mind, and most of the people you betrayed by your deception are either dead or have lost interest.
What a scam.
jeff_from_mpls on September 17, 2008 at 2:15 PM
I’ve read many a book and treatise on the fact that Joe McCarthy wasn’t so wrong after all, as well. Funny how Democrats acted in the 50’s, especially Truman
MNDavenotPC on September 17, 2008 at 2:15 PM
…the ironic thing about “McCarthyism” is the same ironic thing about “Swiftboating”: neither McCarthy or the Swiftboat Veterans were wrong.
McCarthy was a bit florid, and certainly untelegenic — a capital crime to the style-as-substance crowd — but he wasn’t wrong.
The Swiftboat Vets were performing a service.
The Left holds onto the Rosenbergs as it holds onto Sacco and Vanzetti, Joe Hill, and the Haymarket guys…while conveniently forgetting ol’ Uncle Joe’s treatment of every old Bolshevik too slow to emigrate or dodge ice axes…or being silent during the tenure of the “Year Zero” crowd in Cambodia, when in one case an estimated 250,000 folks were reeducated by the short, sharp shocks of shovels in a three month period…or the various playful antics of Ernesto “Che” Guevara…or loads of other socially enlightened goings on globally by their socialist soulmates in the last century or so.
The Rosenbergs were spies (Ethel included)…Sacco and Co. were guilty as hell (proven balistically)…and if I hear Joan Baez or Pete Seeger sing in praise of striking miners one more time, I’m going to go off of fossil fuels….
…the Left never had much use for history, anyway…they snuggle up to traitors and totalitarians and airbrush those they don’t like….
Puritan1648 on September 17, 2008 at 2:16 PM
Now the Left to attempt to whitewash history and portray Communism & Communists as nothing more than misguided, yet lovable, goofballs. And even if some were spies for the USSR, that country was doomed to failure so rooting out and executing their spies was still mean spirited. Look again at Hillary snubbing an anti-Iranian president protest, just because Gov. Palin might show up. There is nothing worse than the right wing of the USA to these people.
rbj on September 17, 2008 at 2:17 PM
Moonbats lied, Rosenbergs fried, Venona Alive.
sven10077 on September 17, 2008 at 2:17 PM
Lefties love a dumb nation. They can exploit more of it, under the guise of “saving” it.
Entelechy on September 17, 2008 at 2:18 PM
Kenninsgton said–
No, sadly it a larger audience than that, and growing thanks to school districts opting to use “A people’s history of the United States” by Howard Zinn as their textbook for “social studies”. In Seattle, this book is used for the majority of middle and high schools.
Although Zinn has written addendums to this books as recently as 2003, he could never bring himself to change his verdict of “innocent” in light of new evidence: like the 1995 release of Venona and the openning of the Soviet archives.
Zinn writes a weepy passage about Morton Sobell being thrown in Alcatraz to illustrate the lack of real justice in America–Yes, America has Show Trial and Gulag system, too, Howard.
Most students eventually realize their textbooks were incomplete and inaccurate at best, slanted, or “full of lies” at worst…
One can only hope the students forced to read Zinn reach that conclusion sooner rather than later.
Peace_Sells... on September 17, 2008 at 2:20 PM
If anyone wants to read a VERY good book about McCarthy I suggest reading this: “Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies” by M. Stanton Evans. A fairly long book at almost 700 pages, but a great book nonetheless.
Luthien on September 17, 2008 at 2:20 PM
I read the book Witness as a kid in junior high school. This was at the height of the Cold War in the 80’s.Even as a kid I knew how destructive communism was. Which is why I wanted to read it.
Read another book on the evils of communism: the biography of Mao written by a Chinese woman (whose name escapes me at the moment). She also wrote Wild Swans, which also showed the evils of communism.
If you read Mao, you will be outraged.
Badger40 on September 17, 2008 at 2:21 PM
You have to ask yourself why today’s leftists think it is a matter of great importance to brand the HUAC hearings as an investigation into something that every enlightened person knows does not exist — i.e., pay no attention to that man who’s not behind the curtain!
Similarly, it’s interesting that the leftists are so focused on disowning the practices of “fascism” that they themselves perfected, by projecting it on to their enemies.
These are not people we should be taking at face value. Never trust a liberal.
jeff_from_mpls on September 17, 2008 at 2:22 PM
While we’re all patting ourselves on the back for knowing the truth about the Rosenbergs and Soviet spies in America, our schoolchildren are still sitting at desks, studying textbooks that describe the Rosenbergs as victims and McCarthy as deranged.
My son had to read Howard Zinn’s disgraceful book “A People’s History of the USA” in his high school history class. I protested to the school board. I tried to get the book removed. I detailed the lies and fabrications in the book. No go, folks. They are still teaching it.
As long as our kids are still being taught lies, they will end up exactly as we see them today at eighteen — stupid, uniformed Obamabots, ready to vote for socialism. (Except for my kids, of course!)
bonnie_ on September 17, 2008 at 2:22 PM
He covered that. What’s your point?
Esthier on September 17, 2008 at 2:30 PM
I was at a Barnes and Noble store awhile ago looking at the American History section when this obviously unstable lefty punk came up to me and said… You need to read Zinn’s book on the Constitution… I looked at him and let him know I had no such intention since I wanted the truth…. he stared at me and called me a Nazi……. VICTORY! That was the best he could do, Oh I was ready to do a literal smack down if necessary, but mano y mano, he didn’t dare.
MNDavenotPC on September 17, 2008 at 2:35 PM
*Ethel was a fellow traveler, probably even more radical than her husband.
*Ethel recruited her brother, David Greenglass, who was a machinist at Los Alamos, to steal atomic secrets.
*There is no doubt that Ethel aided her husband’s spying activities. However, the government alleged that the overt act necessary to convict her of conspiracy was that she typed the atomic secrets to pass on to the soviets. Her supporters are claiming those secrets were not typed and Ruth changed her testimony from the Grand Jury and testified that she saw her type them. However….
*The information attempting to exonerate Ethel is being released piecemeal by the defense. You can’t evaluate testimony this way. You have to examine it all – grand jury, trial, every witness. Since, the Rosenbergs and their supporters have lied their butts off for almost 60 years, pardon me for being skeptical now.
*Either of the Rosenbergs could have confessed with the stipulation that Ethel’s life would be spared. They refused. How hard core Stalinist can you get? She chose to die over her allegiance to a mass murderer than to live for the sake of her two young boys. Call me unsympathetic.
*I disagree that McCarthey undermined the effort to stop espionage.
Blake on September 17, 2008 at 2:37 PM
I was shocked that people still claimed the Rosenberg’s guilt after Venona, and their children held up as victims of Soviet witch hunts. Sorry their parents died, but traitors deserve it. I remember when someone pointed me off to Venona’s web site, I was engrossed and read it until my eyes hurt. Fascinating!
Personally, I think we’re not as tough as perhaps we should be. Karl Fuchs has a wonderful life in England, untouched. When we got hardcore on Adam Ghadhan I was a little relieved. Finally, betraying your country and selling her out to her enemies is not in vogue any more.
linlithgow on September 17, 2008 at 2:38 PM
I do as well, and really don’t understand the arguments that say he did. There were communists in our own government, many who made things more difficult for our government, not less. And yet no one seemed to care.
Esthier on September 17, 2008 at 2:48 PM
Aah, Ed: Your headlines says the Rosenbergs were spies but your article strongly suggests that only one was.
jim m on September 17, 2008 at 2:54 PM
“Freedom Fighter”: I don’t think that phrase means (to a Leftist) what you (and I) think it means.
baldilocks on September 17, 2008 at 2:56 PM
My point, Esthier, is that Ethel Rosenberg could not be considered guilty based on the evidence presented at the trial and from the grand jury testimony by today’s standards. So, yeah, Ethel Rosenberg was part of an overzealous witch hunt by the prosecutors. And Ed’s statement: “although not to dispute her own work as a Soviet spy” can be disputed. If Ethel Rosenberg was guily and deserved the death penalty, then so did the Greenglasses. But they didn’t get the death penalty did they. So my point, Esthier, is that Ethel to this day was falsely charged and convicted as a spy because she was a Jew. Ethel Rosenberg, meet Captain Dreyfuss.
Andy in Agoura Hills on September 17, 2008 at 2:59 PM
McCarthy had his excesses to be sure, but he must be credited with raising awareness about the high levels to which Soviet ops had infiltrated the US government, specifically State and Treasury.
whitetop on September 17, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Oh, you mean traitors like Aldrich Ames, Robert Hansson, or Nada Nadim Prouty???
Andy in Agoura Hills on September 17, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Was she a spy? That’s the moral point.
right2bright on September 17, 2008 at 3:06 PM
Because she was a Jew? Are you off your meds?
The idea that she was persecuted because she was a communist actually has the benefit of being believable. Your joke here simply does not.
The truth is that she was killed because of who she married, and the fact remains that it can be proven that she knew what her husband was doing and did nothing to stop him. What he gave the Soviets actually caused the deaths of our own men.
That makes her a traitor. We don’t kill traitors these days, so no, she’d still be alive if the trial were to occur today, but that doesn’t make her innocent.
Esthier on September 17, 2008 at 3:09 PM
The people undermining the efforts against espionage, were the people accusing anybody and everybody of redbaiting and continue to do so to this very day.
Great books:
Witness by Whittaker Chambers
Whittaker Chambers: A Biography by Sam Tannenhaus
Perjury by Allan Weinstein
Hollywood Party: How Communism Seduced the American Film Industry … by Lloyd Billingsley
Blake on September 17, 2008 at 3:17 PM
Yes. Traitors just like them.
Esthier on September 17, 2008 at 3:17 PM
They were born too early. Today they could have run the presidential campaign and been spies in the open.
Hening on September 17, 2008 at 3:17 PM
Which is your favorite? I’m sure I can’t read all of them, but I have wanted to read up more on this.
Esthier on September 17, 2008 at 3:18 PM
What a load. Why is it that crazy people either think Jews are in charge of everything, or they are all persecuted?
Hening on September 17, 2008 at 3:19 PM
Esthier, Esthier, Esthier. Do I have to recount the blantant, rampant, ubiquitous anti-semitism that flourished in the 1950s??? Are you that uneducated about recent American history??? I’m not off my meds (say, that’s original), but I know a lot more about American culture and history than you do apparently. Recall Hollywood’s attempt to expose anti-semitism in the movie “Gentleman’s Agreement”. Go educate yourself and then we can have an informed adult discussion. Until, then, I stand by my statement.
Andy in Agoura Hills on September 17, 2008 at 3:19 PM
I was right about to say that, and then I read this; glad to stand not-so-alone.
emailnuevo on September 17, 2008 at 3:21 PM
Obviously another deep thinker here at HA.
Yeah, that’s right, Jews were never thought to be the vanguard of communist thought in the western world. And no Jews were ever persecuted because of their liberal (original meaning) beliefs. Say, I bet you think the Holocaust never happened too.
Jackass.
Andy in Agoura Hills on September 17, 2008 at 3:23 PM
I’d rather not have an “adult” conversation on your terms. I’ve found no proof in these threads that you are one.
Yes, I know full well that Jews have long been assaulted, not just here but in nearly every country they’ve been in, including their own. That’s not some news flash you’re bringing in here.
The fact that you believe it is, or that I had no idea about it, speaks more of you than it does of me.
Start embracing reality, and they you can truly have an adult conversation.
I won’t hold my breath.
Esthier on September 17, 2008 at 3:27 PM
Flash-Fried Communist, anyone?
Button? That sounds like a great policy!! Take that, Sean Penn, you socialist butt-kissing weasel!
bryan2369 on September 17, 2008 at 3:30 PM
It’s a toss up between Whittaker Chambers autobio Witness, or his bio by Tannenhaus.
Blake on September 17, 2008 at 3:32 PM
Sooooo, there is no disagreement from you that its possible Ethel Rosenberg was sentenced to death because she was a Jew. Amazing.
Andy in Agoura Hills on September 17, 2008 at 3:37 PM
“Ronald Radosh notes that grand-jury testimony unsealed last week shows strong indications that the testimony of Ruth Greenglass — that Ethel had typed the messages Julius sent to his Soviet handlers — was likely concocted. That had been suspected for decades, and represents a black mark on the prosecutors that handled the case. The Venona messages indicate that Ethel knew about her husband’s work, but apparently do not indicate how much she participated in it.”
That’s what to me strongly suggests Ethel wasn’t a Soviet spy, by the way.
jim m on September 17, 2008 at 3:42 PM
They were charged with espionage, not treason. And, yes, there was sufficient evidence to convict Ethel. The issue is whether the specific evidence supporting the overt act necessary to convict her of espionage, i,e, she typed out the atomic secrets to turn over to the Russians, was perjury.
My take on it is that unless you examine all the testimony and evidence from the grand jury and trial, instead of what is being released by the Meerpols, you can’t form a conclusion.
Remember, Ethel recruited her brother to steal Atomic secrets. I would hardly call her innocent. However, that was not the basis for the charge. The Greenglasses did not receive the death penalty because they would not have committed espionage if the Rosenbergs had not recruited them and because they confessed and cooperated, something the Rosenbergs refused to do.
Also, if you believe that Julius was guilty and Ethel was not, why wouldn’t Julius confess and spare her life? He didn’t confess and she didn’t confess because they were true believers. I’m appalled at what they did to their sons.
Andy, the Rosenbergs do not deserve you going to bat for them. Yes, there were plenty of non-Jewish spies from that time period. But, only the Rosenbergs and their cell were involved with passing atomic secrets.
Blake on September 17, 2008 at 3:44 PM
No, no, and a thousand times, no. Ethel Rosenberg was killed for treason. Not because she was a Jew. Not because she wore white after labor day. For treason.
Whatever the sins of the United States, Jews fled Europe and came here, for safety; while I’m not denying racism and anti-semitism existed, to even mention it in the same breath as Nazism is disrespectful to the millions who perished at the hands of that evil. Equating the refusal to accept ludicrous propositions is not the same as denying historical fact – it’s precisely the opposite. Yours is a very batty idea, given that one of the greatest persecutors of the Jewish people was the Soviet Union. If there was such rampant anti-Semtism in this country, that would kill (in full light of public scrutiny and the media) a woman for her Jewish identity, shouldn’t the helper of the Jew-slaughtering nation have been hailed as a hero, a visionary, a la’ “I’ve seen the future and it works”?
You can stand with the Jews and abhor traitors who happen to be Jewish.
emailnuevo on September 17, 2008 at 3:45 PM
Is there anything in the Verona book that would prove that Ethel was in fact a spy?
By the way, Zinn’s book is not that bad if you take it with a grain of salt and have read many other history books.
jim m on September 17, 2008 at 3:45 PM
Edit: not “treason,” but espionage. As in, they were killed because they were traitors to the country, in today’s sense. I know the definition of treason.
emailnuevo on September 17, 2008 at 3:46 PM
I guess you mean only certain myths. Huh.
peacenprosperity on September 17, 2008 at 3:49 PM
I hate to post it for the fourth time but here it goes:
You do not decide guilt or innoncence based on selective bits and pieces dribbled out by the Meerpols and their attorneys. You look at the entire grand jury and trial transcript.
Blake on September 17, 2008 at 3:50 PM
There’s this:
And this:
From the Stephen Roth Institute.
But I guess its more important to some of you posters to just “kill the bastards”. Now that’s thinking like a liberal.
Andy in Agoura Hills on September 17, 2008 at 3:52 PM
It’s not a book but soviet coded intercepts that took decades to only partially crack. I haven’t looked at it for ten years. I’m sure they are still working on it.
Blake on September 17, 2008 at 3:54 PM
Read my post from the Stephen Roth Institute. Ethel Rosenberg was not a traitor. SHE WAS CONVICTED FOR ESPIONAGE. That carries a different penalty. But as my post states, she did not commit treason. But they gave her the penalty for treason. Completely unconstitutional.
Andy in Agoura Hills on September 17, 2008 at 4:06 PM
Even money says George and Ethel were more conservative than Ms. Pelosi….
CC
CapedConservative on September 17, 2008 at 4:07 PM
you wacko leftists never give up do you? Hiss was a traitor, the rosenbergs were too…deal with it.
right4life on September 17, 2008 at 4:09 PM
This is rich: Morton Sobell takes on the Venona findings.
MORTON SOBELL ON VENONA
and
Morton Sobell’s “vacation” trip was sudden, indeed…
and here’s the TIME magazine article that came out in 1969 when he was released states his wife was on a 24/7 crusade to free and clear him. Sobell’s wife raised a spent over a million dollars on his behalf.
What kind of man could put their wife through this knowing it was all a lie? Probably the kind of man who sends out letters of solidarity to other “political prisoners” residing in US prisons.
Letter in support of Mumia Abu-Jamal
From Morton Sobell, 13 October 1995
Living a lie…keeping the lie alive at all costs, all for Stalin the beneficient.
The lie was more important to the Rosenbergs than their own children.
They chose death before giving up on the utopian delusion contained in John Lennon’s “Imagine”.
A sad commentary on the pathology of the left.
Peace_Sells... on September 17, 2008 at 4:26 PM
Andy, you’re a lib so you must believe in the ‘living Constitution’ so that the term “Enemies” in the Constitution really means frenemies. While the US and the Soviet Union were allies, that didn’t mean that the Soviet Union did not consider the USA its enemy. It was a marriage of convenience, given the Hitler Stalin Pact, in 1939, it can hardly be gainsaid that the Soviets were our friends.
The Rosenbergs were guilty. The fact that Grand Jury testimony of Ruth left out one detail, is hardly convincing that she committed perjury at trial. I am quite sure that the attorneys were provided with her Grand Jury testimony and argued to the jury these points which the trier of facts rejected.
As for anti Semitism, that is a false charge. Once again it was the anti Semitic Soviets trying ‘community organizing’ by falsely creating grievances without any basis. I know that there was anti Semitism throughout the fifties, but it was strongly moderating because the pictures and movies from Hitler’s death camps were slowly sinking into American consciousness. You would also have to believe that Roy Cohn, who was not a self hating Jew, would base his prosecution against the Rosenbergs on anti Semitism. Nonsense. The fact that many Jews were communists and socialists during this time period, made them mistake, innocently or not, the reason why the US government was seeking to protect itself from the communist virus. Transferring atomic secrets to the Soviets was evil and the Rosenbergs deserve their fate as a warning to other married couples that traitorous acts should meet the highest penalty permitted.
eaglewingz08 on September 17, 2008 at 4:34 PM
Espionage in the service of an enemy country = giving the enemy aid and comfort.
End of discussion.
newton on September 17, 2008 at 4:40 PM
It was constitutional:
Rosenberg v. United States (1953) 346 U.S. 273, 29-290 By MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, whom MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON, MR. JUSTICE REED, MR. JUSTICE BURTON, MR. JUSTICE CLARK and MR. JUSTICE MINTON join.
Blake on September 17, 2008 at 4:42 PM
The penalty under the Espionage Act of 1917 is death or 30 years imprisonment.
Blake on September 17, 2008 at 4:52 PM
…she was convicted, and the Greenglasses weren’t, because she was ratted out by David Greenglass…her brother. He was still pretty at peace with his actions a few years ago on 60 Minutes, if I recall…looked a smarmy little rodent….
Mind you, the trial was a bit dodgy, but we can always try her again, if it’d make you happy. Then again, there were enough lies and counter-lies then and since between the particulars in that cell — and it American communism as a whole from the ’30’s on — that it’d be hard to tell which smelled worse, the original trial or the defendents amongst themselves.
The whole “because they were Jewish” doesn’t wash. It’s like saying “they were communists because they were Jewish”. If that was the case, taking your premise, why weren’t Greenglass and Sobell seen off to well deserved rewards courtesty of Mr. Edisons electrified Laz-e-boy.
I’m for retroactive justice in their case…take Sobell to see Mr. Sparky…and sit Jonathan Pollard in his lap….
Puritan1648 on September 17, 2008 at 5:05 PM
Treason =/= Espionage. ITS A CONSTITUTIONAL FACT.
BTW, for you deep thinkers that are calling me a leftwing whacko etc., let’s get one thing clear: I’m not a hack, shill, or mouthpiece for any ideology, conservative or liberal. I’m an independent. I just happen to believe Ethel’s conviction was based on perjury and violation of the Constitution and to some extent anti-semitism. I have presented my case. I’m not convinced by yours. Though, Blake my have convinced me the death penalty was Constitutional. Either the laws of this country apply equally and consistently, or they don’t apply at all. Keep that in mind when you are on trial for your life.
Andy in Agoura Hills on September 17, 2008 at 5:26 PM
Johnathan Pollard did not commit treason either. Israel has admitted he was employed as their spy. He served more time than any other Soviet spy. Why kill him? Oh that’s right, he’s a Jew!!!!
Andy in Agoura Hills on September 17, 2008 at 5:30 PM
Nothing new here. He was guilty. She was not. The prosecution was using the case against her to get him to confess. He would rather see his wife fry than admit his treason. So, they both fried.
tommylotto on September 17, 2008 at 7:25 PM
Oh to hell with it – I’m gonna say this anyway – Bring Back the House Un-American Activities Committee!!!
This time make sure it sweeps up Jimmy Carter, Olberdouche, Michael Moore and all the America-hating Hollywood celebutards.
Deport them Canada where they’ll be happier. Or Iran – where they can dialog for peace with Ahmadinejad until the last Imam returns.
uptight on September 17, 2008 at 7:36 PM
Selling out to the moderates or something? Joe batted 1000 and that is the fact.
He may have been showy, but he was foocking right, and don’t you or anyone else forget that.
Tim Burton on September 17, 2008 at 7:39 PM
Hi Ed,
I liked this post but I disagree with your characterizationn of McCarthy. You said:
That seems to imply that McCarthy was wrong. He was not wrong and he was vindicated by Venona. His position was that suspected communists shouldn’t be working for the government (especially in sensitive positions). I think that characterizing McCarthy’s work as you have lends credence to the left’s view that McCarthy was not only wrong but that his efforts were ultimately discredited. That is not correct. Since the Venona cables were not available to him he could not prove the suspicions (this fact was was not his fault). With Soviet spies influencing the highest levels of government I don’t see that McCarthy had many options.
Mormon Doc on September 17, 2008 at 7:42 PM
Tim Burton on September 17, 2008 at 7:39 PM
Looks like you and I were on the same wavelength. I apologize if that frightens you. :P
Mormon Doc on September 17, 2008 at 7:44 PM
Hey, when I was a kid, I read something in the paper about the House of UnAmerican Activities. It confused the hell out of me. I kept asking everyone, How can a house be unAmerican?
Blake on September 17, 2008 at 8:11 PM
No shinola.
Akzed on September 17, 2008 at 8:33 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »