Totalitarian states, whether Communist or Fascist, know how to create and make use of martyrs. The Russians are using the Rosenbergs as expendable weapons of political warfare. And the Rosenbergs, who have refused to talk, are apparently still willing instruments of the conspiracy they once served.
There has been no responsible claim here that the two defendants have not received every consideration and every opportunity provided under American law. No new evidence has been produced since their conviction. Most people familiar with Communist tactics of political warfare would probably agree that the Rosenbergs dead will be of more use to the Russians than they would be alive.
Dead they can be made a symbol; alive they might one day talk. But it seems to this reporter that there is here involved something more important than a small skirmish in propaganda warfare. There is a law - it provides certain penalties. There was a trial, complete and open, conducted under the law. A verdict was reached by a jury. A sentence was imposed. And, as President Eisenhower concluded in one of the best written statements to come from the White House in a long time, he "feels it his duty in the interests of the people of the United States not to set aside the verdict of their representatives.
But a departure from that principle might damage us fatally. What does one write to his beloved when faced with the very grim reality that in eighteen days, on their 14th wedding anniversary, it is ordered that they be put to death?
Over and over again, I have tried to analyze in the most objective manner possible the answers to the position of our government in our case. Everything indicates only one answer - that the wishes of certain madmen are being followed in order to use this case as a coercive bludgeon against all dissenters.
I know that our children and our family are suffering a great deal right now and it is natural that we be concerned for their welfare.
However, I think we will have to concentrate our strength on ourselves. First, we want to make sure that we stand up under the terrific pressure, and then we ought to try to contribute some share to the fight. Why are we the only western country that lives in terror of native Communists. All the European countries have open and above-board political Communist parties some even have members of Parliament or whatever, and they do not have Un-Dutch Activities Committee.
Look at the contrast between the English treatment of Klaus Fuchs and our treatment of the Rosenbergs. Fuchs is a scientist which Rosenberg was not he gave valuable atomic secrets to the Russians Urey testified that Rosenberg did not know enough to do that he confessed the Rosenbergs refused to, though offered their lives as reward Fuchs acted during the war, the Rosenbergs during peace. As you may know, the execution of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg has aroused profound emotions in Europe, especially in France.
It has also been the cause, or sometimes the occasion, of strong hostility and severe criticism being expressed in the press or by the public I am referring here to the non-Communist press and public.
In taking the liberty of writing to you on this subject I am urged, not by the desire to express criticism or reprobation but by my love and admiration for your country where I have many close friends. As a scientist, I naturally address myself to scientists. Moreover, I know that American scientists respect their profession, and are aware that it involves a permanent pact with objectivity and truth - and that indeed wherever objectivity, truth, and justice are at stake, a scientist has the duty to form an opinion, and defend it.
This, I hope, will be accepted as a valid explanation and excuse for my writing this letter. In any case, whether one agrees or not with what I think must be said, I beg that this letter be taken for what it is: a manifestation of deep sympathy and concern for America.
First of all, Americans should be fully aware of the extraordinary amplitude and unanimity of the movement which developed in France. Everybody here, in every walk of life, and independent of all political affiliations, followed the last stages of the Rosenberg case with anxiety, and the tragic outcome evoked anguish and consternation everywhere.
Have Americans realized, were they informed, that pleas for mercy were sent to President Eisenhower not only by thousands of private individuals and groups, including many of the most respected writers and scientists, not only by all the highest religious leaders, not only by entire official bodies such as the conservative Municipal Council of Paris, but by the President of the Republic himself, who was thus obeying and expressing the unanimous wish of the French people.
As your New York Times remarked with some irony and complete truth, France achieved a unanimity in the Rosenberg case that she could never hope to achieve on a domestic issue. To a certain extent these widespread reactions were due to the simple human appeal of the case: this young couple, united in death by a frightful sentence which made orphans of their innocent children, the extraordinary courage shown by Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, their letters to each other, simple and moving.
All this naturally evoked compassion, but it would be wrong to think that the French succumbed to a purely sentimental appeal to pity. Public opinion, and first of all the intellectual circles, were primarily sensitive to the legal and ethical aspects of the case, which were widely publicized, analyzed, and discussed.
If I may be allowed, I should like to review briefly the points which appeared most significant to us in forming an opinion on the whole affair. The first was that the entire accusation, hence the whole case of the American government, rested upon the testimony of avowed spies, the Greenglass couple, of whom David received a light sentence after turning state's evidence fifteen years reducible to five on good behavior , while his wife Ruth was not even indicted.
The dubious value of testimony from such sources was apparent to everyone. Moreover, leaving the ethical and legal doubts aside, is it probable or even possible that a simple mechanic such as David Greenglass, with no scientific training, could have chosen, assimilated, and memorized secrets of decisive atomic importance, under the directions of the similarly untrained Julius Rosenberg? Scientists here always found this difficult to believe, and their doubts were confirmed when Urey himself clearly stated in a letter to President Eisenhower that he considered it impossible Greenglass is supposed to have revealed to the Russians the secrets of the atomic bomb.
Though the information supposed to have been transmitted could have been important, a man of Greenglass' capacity is wholly incapable of transmitting the physics, chemistry, and mathematics of the atomic bomb to anyone. After that it was difficult for us to accept, as justification of an unprecedented sentence, the following statement of Judge Kaufman: "I believe your conduct in putting into the hands of the Russians the A-bomb years before our best scientists predicted Russia would perfect the bomb, has already caused the Communist aggression in Korea with the resulting casualties.
Indeed the gravest, the most decisive point was the nature of the sentence itself. Even if the Rosenbergs actually performed the acts with which they were charged, we were shocked at a death sentence pronounced in time of peace, for actions committed, it is true, in time of war, but a war in which Russia was an ally, not an enemy, of the United States We could not understand that Ethel Rosenberg should have been sentenced to death when the specific acts of which she was accused were only two conversations; and we were unable to accept the death sentence as being justified by the "moral support" she was supposed to have given her husband.
In spite of these doubts and fears, all those of us who know and love your country, followed each step in the case with anxiety, but also with hope. There were still further appeals to be made, new evidence to be presented, and in the last resort, the President would surely grant mercy where mercy was humanly and ethically called for. We thought a point would finally be reached above the level of irresponsible passions, where reason and justice would prevail. Above all, we counted on American intellectuals and men of science.
Knowing the generosity and courage of so many of them, we felt sure they would speak, and hoped they would be heard. We constantly had in mind our own Dreyfus case, when a handful of intellectuals had risen against a technically correct decision of justice, against the Army hierarchy, against public opinion and government which were a prey to nationalist fury, and we remembered that this handful of intellectuals had succeeded, after five years of stubborn efforts, in confounding the liars, and freeing their innocent victim.
We felt that you American intellectuals could similarly turn what appeared at first a denial of justice into a triumph for justice. That is why the case assumed so much importance in Europe, particularly in France.
And above all, it was important to liberal intellectuals who, in contrast to Communists, had hoped to find that the most powerful nation of the free world could afford to be at once objective, just, and merciful. So we continued to hope through the last days of the young couple's life American scientists and intellectuals, the execution of the Rosenbergs is a grave defeat for you, for us, and for the free world.
We do not for a moment believe that this tragic outcome of what appeared to us a crucial test-case, means that you were indifferent to it - but it does testify to your present weakness, in your own country.
Not one of us would dare reproach you for this, as we do not feel we have any right to give lessons in civic courage when we ourselves have been unable to prevent so many miscarriages of justice in France, or under French sovereignty.
What we want to tell you is that, in spite of this defeat, you must not be discouraged, you must not abandon hope, you must continue publicly to serve truth, objectivity, and justice. If you speak firmly and unanimously you will be heard by your countrymen, who are aware of the importance of science, and of your great contributions to American wealth, power, and prestige.
You, American scientists and intellectuals, bear great responsibilities which you cannot escape, and which we can only partly share with you. America has power and leadership among the nations. You must, for civilization's sake, obtain moral leadership and power in your own country. Now, as never before, the world needs a free, strong, just America, turned toward social and moral as well as technical progress.
Now, as never before, intellectuals the world over must turn to you American scientists to lead your country in this direction, and to help her conquer her fears and control her passions. One of the most enduring controversies of the cold war, the trial and executions of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg as Soviet spies, was revived last night when her convicted brother said that he had lied at the trial to save himself and his wife.
Mr Greenglass, who lives under an assumed identity, was sentenced to 15 years and released from prison in He said in a taped interview on last night's CBS television programme 60 Minutes that he, too, gave the Russians atomic secrets and information about a newly invented detonator. He said he gave false testimony because he feared that his wife Ruth might be charged, and that he was encouraged by the prosecution to lie.
He gave the court the most damning evidence against his sister: that she had typed up his spying notes, intended for transmission to Moscow, on a Remington portable typewriter. Now he says that this testimony was based on the recollection of his wife rather than his own first-hand knowledge. As if progressives had not in recent years been battered and bludgeoned enough already, we now learn that J.
We also learn that during the Cold War years and even before hordes of leftists were abroad in the land, stealing "our" atomic secrets and God only knows what else for delivery to Joseph Stalin. In recent days, this message has been dunned into our ears by such opinion-makers as William F. Buckley, Jr. The authors claim to have put together a "massive documentary record" from the hitherto secret Comintern archives, revealing "the dark side of American communism.
Such assertions are not all that different from what J. Edgar Hoover and his stooges were saying half a century ago. But what reinforces the authors' statements are not only the documents from the Russian archives they claim to have uncovered, but also the imposing editorial advisory committee assembled to give this project an eminent scholarly cachet.
This editorial advisory committee consists of 30 academics whose names are listed opposite the title page. There are also an equal number of members of the Russian Academy of Sciences and of officials of various Russian archives.
Reproduced in the book are 92 documents offered by the authors as evidence of what they say is the United States Communist Party's continuous history of "covert activity.
The authors also say that the documents suggest that those "who continued to claim otherwise were either willfully naive or, more likely, dishonest. In actuality, many of the documents are ambiguously worded or in some sort of code known only to the senders and recipients. They often contain illegible words, numbers and signatures; relate to unidentifiable persons, places and events; and are preoccupied with bookkeeping matters, inner-party hassles or with protective security measures against FBI and Trotskyite spies.
Most importantly, not a single document reproduced in this volume provides evidence of espionage. Ignoring all evidence that contradicts their thesis, the authors attempt to make a case relying on assumption, speculation, and invention about the archival material and, especially, by equating secrecy with illegal spying.
The book's high points are sections relating to what the authors call atomic espionage and the CP Washington spy apparatus. As someone who has carefully examined the archives at the Russian Center, and who over the past four decades has studied the trial transcripts of the major Cold War "spy" cases, I can state that "The Secret World of American Communism," notwithstanding its scholarly accouterments, is a disgracefully shoddy work, replete with errors, distortions and outright lies.
As a purported work of objective scholarship, it is nothing less than a fraud. In my possession is a document, responding to my request, and dated October 12, , signed by Oleg Naumov, Deputy Director of the Russian Center for the Preservation and Study of Documents of Recent History, attesting that the Center has no files on, or relating to, any of the above-named persons.
A total of 15 pages in "Secret World" have some reference either to Hiss or Chambers. By my count, these contain 73 separate misrepresentations of fact or downright lies. For example, the authors claim that J. Peters "played a key role in Chambers' story" that Hiss was a Soviet spy.
Peters played no role in Chambers' story about espionage. Chambers said that the key figure in his espionage activities with Hiss was a Russian named "Colonel Boris Bykov," a character whose identity the FBI spent years futilely trying to establish. The authors claim Chambers testified he worked in the Communist underground in the s with groups of government employees who "provided the CPUSA with information about sensitive government activities.
References to Ethel and Julius Rosenberg and their case can be found on five pages. In those pages, by my tally, are 31 falsehoods or distortions of evidence.
For example, the authors say the Rosenbergs' conviction was for "involvement in The authors also say the Rosenbergs were arrested as a result of information the authorities obtained from Klaus Fuchs, which led to Harry Gold, who led them to David Greenglass, who implicated the Rosenbergs. All of these statements are based on an FBI press release. In fact, no evidence has ever been produced that indicates that Fuchs, Gold or Greenglass ever mentioned the Rosenbergs before their arrests.
Discussing one other "spy" case, that of Judith Coplon, against whom all charges were dismissed, the authors in typical contempt of official court records write that "there was not the slightest doubt of her guilt.
For instance, the authors say she "stole" an FBI report and she was arrested when she handed over' the stolen report "to a Soviet citizen. Here we go again. New York Post editor Eric Breindel, writing in The New Republic and The Wall Street Journal , insists that the recent release by the National Security Agency of an encrypted document sent by a Soviet spy in Washington to his superiors in Moscow on March 30, , constitutes "the smoking gun in the Hiss case," proving "beyond doubt" that Hiss "was still a Soviet agent in Since I am writing in what Breindel who has died since this article was written preemptively calls "America's leading forum for Alger Hiss apologia," one could be forgiven for expecting yet another plea for justice for Hiss.
I take no position on guilt or innocence in truth, I still can't make up my mind. Today's lesson deals instead with a disturbing nexus of scholarship, journalism and Cold War fanaticism that, based on either a careless or a deliberately malicious reading of declassified national security documents, threatens our ability ever to make sense of the past half-century of our history.
The drill has become a familiar one: Hitherto secret documents or ex-spy confessions, often backed up by a major publishing campaign, reveal that so-and-so was a spy all along. Journalists trumpet the charge, calling on "respected" academics to either endorse or debunk the charges. Depending on the usually predictable political orientation of the academic in question, a person's reputation is either destroyed or merely damaged.
The story then goes away until the next batch of documents appears or the next spy gets religion. Though he did not endorse the charge himself, Gordievsky argued, in Andrew's words, that as a young agent he had been reliably informed by many important Soviet intelligence officials that Harry Hopkins, FDR's most trusted adviser, had been a Soviet "agent of major significance.
Time trumpeted the charges in a much-publicized excerpt but, owing to both the unbelievability of the charges and the authors' unwillingness to stand by them, they did not cause much of a stir. Most reviewers were decidedly unimpressed with the work. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. Being a KGB defector, Gordievsky did not have much to lose, reputation-wise. Recently, it is U.
After classifying its intercepts as top secret for decades and refusing all scholars' entreaties for access, the National Security Agency called a press conference in July to announce the release of forty-nine intercepts, dubbed the Venona papers, that dealt with the case of the Rosenbergs.
Sanho Tree, a research fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, had applied for these same documents under the Freedom of Information Act in but was informed that they were properly classified as top secret. Tree received the documents by Federal Express just hours before the press conference began. Apparently, the NSA decided it would endanger national security if an IPS scholar saw the material before it had a chance to invite favored journalists to a screening, complete with fancy booklets and brochures.
This first batch of transcripts convinced many including me that Julius Rosenberg was indeed a spy. Even committed Rosenberg partisans Walter and Miriam Schneir were convinced. But Ronald Radosh, transformed from obscure New Left historian to well-funded, right-wing hatchetman during the Reagan era, crowed that the documents proved "the Rosenbergs were not only Communists" but "were recruited right out of the party for Soviet espionage.
The intercepts did nothing to prove Ethel's espionage involvement or mitigate the accusation that the government executed an innocent woman in a failed attempt to extract a confession from her husband.
Radosh and Joyce Milton, his coauthor of "The Rosenberg File," had contended that "it seems almost certain that Ethel acted as an accessory. Alexander Feklisov, 93, who was regarded as one of the Soviet Union's principal Cold War espionage agents, with connections to the Rosenberg spy case and atomic secrets, died in Russia on Oct.
A Russian news agency said his death was reported by a spokesman for the Russian intelligence service. Feklisov was often credited with helping to defuse the Cuban Missile Crisis, which brought the world close to nuclear war. For Mr. Feklisov, deception was a way of life. His employers were obsessively secretive. But revelations he made long after the events in question have won considerable acceptance. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Michael Dobbs, formerly a reporter for The Washington Post and now on contract to the newspaper, interviewed Mr.
Dobbs's story was published in , around the time a TV documentary was shown about the former spy and four years before Mr. Feklisov's autobiography, The Man Behind the Rosenbergs , was published. Dobbs said this week that he believed Mr. Feklisov "was being pretty truthful," particularly in his account of his dealing with Julius Rosenberg.
Feklisov said there were dozens of meetings with Julius Rosenberg from to But he said Ethel Rosenberg never met with Soviet agents and took no direct part in her husband's spying.
Both Rosenbergs were executed in after a treason trial at which they were accused of giving the Soviets atomic bomb secrets. Their fate evoked protest around the world, and many insisted on their innocence. In Mr. Feklisov's account, Julius Rosenberg was a dedicated communist, motivated by idealism. But Mr. Feklisov said Rosenberg, who was not a nuclear scientist, played only a peripheral role in atomic espionage. Feklisov said Rosenberg did give him the key to another one of World War II's closely guarded secrets: the proximity fuse.
This device vastly improved the effectiveness of artillery and antiaircraft fire by causing shells to detonate once they came close to their targets, rather than requiring direct hits. A fully functioning fuse, inside a box, was turned over to Mr. Feklisov in a New York Automat in late Important nuclear information was later passed through Mr.
Feklisov to the Soviets by Klaus Fuchs, a nuclear scientist working in England who was a devoted communist. Historians have said that espionage advanced Soviet bomb development by 12 to 18 months. In his activities, Mr.
Feklisov, who used the code name Fomin, sometimes employed techniques made familiar in spy novels. For example, he told Dobbs that when handing off contraband, he and those working for him "would arrange to meet in a place like Madison Square Garden or a cinema and brush up against each other very quickly. During the missile crisis, the United States faced off with the Soviet Union after discovering that nuclear missiles had been delivered to Cuba.
According to some reports, David Greenglass had initially failed to mention his sister's involvement in espionage, later stating that she had participated as well. Julius Rosenberg was arrested on July 17, , and his wife was taken into custody a few weeks later. The Rosenbergs were brought to trial the following March, and both proclaimed their innocence.
By this time, the U. Julius and Ethel were both convicted of conspiracy to commit espionage, and in early April , the couple was sentenced to death. A series of appeals delayed their execution for more than two years. The couple's supporters also requested clemency for the Rosenbergs from presidents Harry S.
Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower, who both denied to issue a pardon. Minutes later, his wife died in the same electric chair. The couple left behind two young sons, Michael and Robert. Even after his execution, Julius Rosenberg remained a subject of much speculation.
Many, including their two sons, believed both Julius and Ethel were innocent for years. In the mids, the Venona messages were released to the public, showing that Julius had some involvement with the Soviets. Not long after, Rosenberg's Soviet spy contact, Alexander Feklisov, acknowledged that he had worked with Julius during the s.
In , Rosenberg's college friend, Morton Sobell, publicly admitted that he had been a spy for the Soviet Union. He also provided more details on Julius Rosenberg's activities.
This latest revelation convinced the Rosenbergs' children, now known as Michael and Robert Meeropol, that their father had been a spy, but they remain convinced that their mother was only guilty by association. We strive for accuracy and fairness. If you see something that doesn't look right, contact us! Subscribe to the Biography newsletter to receive stories about the people who shaped our world and the stories that shaped their lives.
Ethel Rosenberg and husband Julius Rosenberg were convicted of conspiracy to commit espionage in In , the National Security Agency released a half-century-old trove of decrypted Soviet messages from the Venona Project which provided clear evidence of Julius' espionage.
Four years later, Sam Roberts' The Brother: The Untold Story of the Rosenberg Case contained new bombshells from the reclusive Greenglass, including the admission that his wife possibly typed up the notes during the infamous September meeting, and that he told a different story on the witness stand to protect his immediate family. The release of grand jury testimony in seemingly confirmed that account, while also providing inconsistencies between what Gold said in private and in public.
That year, Sobell also went on record to confess to his and Julius' involvement with the Soviets, though he insisted that his colleague's information was useless to the Eastern power, and that Ethel was guilty only of "being Julius' wife.
The various revelations have prompted the Rosenbergs' surviving sons, Michael and Robert Meeropol, to launch an effort to have their mother formally exonerated.
They were unable to win over President Obama , but there may be more chapters to come in this long-running Cold War saga.
The world was riveted to the long-running saga of the American exchange student who was accused of killing her roommate. From New York City nightclubs to the White House, the couple has survived the scrutiny of a union lived out in the tabloids.
The up-and-coming boxer relished the tutelage and friendship of the influential Nation of Islam minister before a power struggle drove them apart. The young mother raised suspicions with her behavior after the disappearance of her daughter, Caylee, though prosecutors were unable to conclusively tie her to the toddler's death.
From the Bronco chase to inside the California courtroom, here are the key moments from the trial of the former NFL running back. From Gacy's first sexual assault conviction to his eventual execution, here are the key moments from one of the most notorious murder sprees in U.
On September 12, , the future president and first lady married in a wedding that garnered national attention, but it wasn't without several bumps in the road. By Tim Ott.
0コメント