Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jack Upland (talk | contribs) at 02:50, 16 December 2005 (→X-line). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

An event mentioned in this article is a June 19 selected anniversary

Details of execution

I admit the details of the execution are rather grisly, even though they are brief. However, the gory details of the Rosenbergs' execution is one of the major elements of their story -- two possibly innocent civilians being executed by one of the most heinous and inhuman methods available. Please decide whether the execution details should be included in the article. -- Modemac

Suggestion for further research: I recall reading something about the opening of Soviet archives, and there being some information regarding the Rosenbergs' execution/crimes. I've also read that Julius took 3 tries & Ethel 5 - but I don't have a good source on that. And did you mention that they left behind 2 young sons? ~ender 2003-04-02 23:45 MST

Speech

Hello. I am a student, and I am writing a speech on this topic for my English Class. I found it to be very sad, interesting, and educational; that is why I chose it to be my topic. I think that your site has helped me immensely, and I thank you for all the wonderful information that you provided me with. I just wanted to notify you and give you my thanks.

Nikita Khrushchev

The article says Nikita Khrushchev praised the pair in his 1990 memoirs when he wrote of their "very significant help in accelerating the production of our atomic bomb". how's that when Khrushchev died in 1971?

It does seem amazingly prescient, doesn't it? But "Khruschev Remembers" was transcribed from Khruschev's tapes and published in at least two volumes: I can't quite track the bibliographic records just now but it seems that Little, Brown either published or republished the last of these around 1990. I'm not sure if that's the explanation. - Nunh-huh 03:36, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Given this is such a politically charged case, how reliable is the transcription? Particularly since this more controversial detail comes out very late in the piece!--Jack Upland 23:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Disputed

We say in our lead that "the Rosenbergs were indeed guilty of espionage". I am more than passingly familiar with the case, and while it seems to me to be very likely that Julius engaged in espionage (although less clear whether he passed on any important information), I've seen almost nothing to suggest any such involvement by Ethel, and quite a bit to the contrary (much of it in our article). This seems to me to qualify as a factual dispute, so rather than edit, I am slapping on a "disputed" tag and giving 72 hours for someone to back that up with a citation before I edit. -- Jmabel 23:01, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

I agree... all the available evidence seems to indicate that Ethel was innocent except insofar as she was Julius' wife. I say just fix it, forget the disputed tag... it was probably just an oversight. Graft 13:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'll give someone another day or so to find a citation, then I'll do just that. -- Jmabel 18:24, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Remember, Ethel was not convivted of espionage, but conspiracy to commit espionage. The difference may seem subtle, but it has a whole other legal definition. It is much easier to convict someone of conspiracy to (fill in the blank), because you do not have to show that the individual knew a crime was bieng commited, or that they had an active part in the crime itself.

Just food for thought. TDC 07:59, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

However, the case in point is not what the courts found, but what the actual truth is. Graft 11:47, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Remember that the statement in our lead is not that she was "indeed guilty" of conspiracy, but of espionage. And I have yet to see a single citation for that. TDC, you seem (in effect) to be agreeing with that. -- Jmabel 18:42, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

It's been a while and there's been no citation, so I'm amending the lead and removing the disputed tag. ←Hob 17:20, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)

Agreed, but since I'm the one who raised the dispute, you should not have removed the tag before I said that your edit meets my objection (it does, so no big deal). -- Jmabel 17:59, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

I removed "also" of this sentence: "particularly considering that the Soviets were also receiving information on the Atomic bomb from Klaus Fuchs and Donald Maclean." With that "also" you admit Julius Rosember was actually giving information on the Atomic bomb to the Soviets. That is disputed. -- Nexus 17:59, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

The evidence against Julius should be more disputed as it hangs on a Venona transcript produced by the executioner (the US govt) 50 yrs after the event. The craziness of the KGB using codenames for everyone and then giving a street address should be mentioned here! I've made more comments on Venona under the Fuchs entry.--Jack Upland 23:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

LITERATURE

Just a note: for anyone interested in a literary research on this case, read E.L. Doctorow's "The Book of Daniel", where he tells the story of Daniel, the son of Rochelle and Paul Isaacson, a couple accused of espionage and executes in Sing Sing in 1954... (Italian user)

Though highly fictionalized, in ways that Robert Meeropol has been unhappy with. In particular, he feels that he and his brother were much better treated by the CP than the book suggests. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:54, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Things missing

Things missing from this article which ought to be worked in include:

• It was the capture of Klaus Fuchs which lead to Harry Gold which lead to David Greenglass which lead to the Rosenbergs. Fuchs shouldn't be only mentioned at the end of the article as a bit player, he's half the story, and certainly responsible for the context.
• The assistant prosecutor in this case was none other than Roy Cohn, later side-man of Joseph McCarthy. This deserves some note.
• The Rosenbergs were not the only defendents at the trial; there was a third: Morton Sobell, who was not executed.
• The specific information Julius Rosenberg was supposed to have passed on included: lens molds, implosion diagrams, the proximity fuze, and information about a speculative space platform which would have sat between the earth and the moon (no joke!).

Just a suggestion, for those who have a little time to burn... --Fastfission 23:46, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Klaus Fuchs did not lead to Harry Gold. This is a factoid. The details are in Norman Moss's Klaus Fuchs. Fuchs was asked to identify a Soviet courier from photographs - one of which was Gold. He failed to identify Gold. He was then showed film of Gold - a rather dubious move - and then "identified" him. In other words, they already had Gold as a suspect. The true story is still by no means clear.

By the way, Mort Sobell is still around, in contact with the Rosenberg boys and still maintains his innocence.

Other weird stuff in the trial includes a lot of evidence about a super-dooper "spy table" the Rosenbergs had. It was just a normal table, of course. Then again, the Alger Hiss Case did feature the Pumpkin Papers! --Jack Upland 21:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

This document is fundemental reading: Wikisource:Explanation and History of Venona Project Information; the government knew of the Rosenbergs from Venona materials, however (as the section on Prosecution explains) Venona materials were not used in prosecution. As the 1956 documents states in the introduction,

"Based on information developed from (Secret) traffic, there has been prosecution of Judith Coplon, Valentin Gubitchev, Emil Klaus Fuchs, Harry Gold, Alfred Dean Slack, Abraham Brothman, Miriam Moskowitz, David Greenglass, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Morton Sobell and William Perl. All of these cases were investigations instituted by us directly or indirectly from (Secret) information. These prosecutions were instituted without using (Secret) information in court." {emphasis mine}

Hence, Fuchs was not the source of info, but did provide the links necessary for a successful prosecution without Venona materials. nobs 04:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

This underlines my problem with this approach:

• The document you cite is authored by US intelligence. These are the organisations responsible for the WMD 'intelligence failure'/ disinformation success - and this was apparently written during the Cold War. They were also answering accusations that they had unjustly executed the Rosenbergs. So this source has a few credibility problems.
• Soviet double agent Kim Philby (defected 1963) stated he met Meredith Gardner, the chief cryptographer for Venona (My Secret War). This invalidates all the waffle about 'not letting the Soviets know we know'.
• The document admits the Venona evidence is 'circumstantial' and 'hearsay'. Why then is it universally accepted as final proof of the Rosenbergs' guilt?
• The general approach to evidence relies not on analysis but on accumulation: 'throw enough mud, some of it sticks'. The cases cited are impressive if you don't know the dubious details. As is all the other evidence and since the sources are not independent (all emanating from US intelligence) they amount to little more than 50 years of self-justification.
• As a result, there is a welter of supposed connections but none of this adds up to a logical spy operation. We know Fuchs spied in Los Alamos - but why run the know-nothing Greenglass in the same facility (and risk him blowing Fuchs' cover)? And why involve the Rosenbergs in some top secret family picnic? That just creates a larger target for US counter-intelligence. None of it makes sense.

--Jack Upland 22:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• • The document cited is an FBI memorandum; FBI did not investigate Sadam's WMD. Invalid metaphor. Also, cite where in the 1956 "Belmont to Boardman" memo they were "answering accusations that they had unjustly executed the Rosenbergs".
  • Soviets knew we knew in 1948 through thier mole, Bill Weisband, as Moynihan Secrecy Commission attests .
  • The memo clearly states the 'hearsay' rule in a court of law could be overcome with expert witness testimony from cryptographers, and would provide needed corroboration for successful prosecution.
  • The counterintelligence investigation (Intelligence is an entirely different field) spanned 38 years, enough time presumably to examine the evidence, establish the facts, and report findings.
  • I do not believe the Rosenberg's denied they were involved in espionage. nobs 17:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• • • The Venona material came to the FBI via NSA, CIA and who knows who else. The FBI was hardly 'pure' at this time - take their operation against Martin Luther King for example. What a quibble!
    • Everyone knew the Rosenbergs were a hot issue. Still makes headlines! Get real!
    • The point of Philby is that he came out as a mole in 1963. The US govt took 30 years to release Venona. One-finger typists?!
    • On 'hearsay' you cite the memo to prove the memo's validity.
    • On 'counterintelligence' you've missed the point but 'presumably' says it all.
    • The Rosenbergs always proclaimed their innocence. How bizarre!--Jack Upland 03:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

See my response at Talk:Significance_of_Venona#Footnote_Warfare
(here's a classified secret, the answer is 3 + 3 + 3). nobs 04:00, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Clearly 87 has some numerological (?) significance for you. Seriously, all your protestations of good faith underline the fact you have none. The comment that you don't believe the Rosenbergs denied espionage speaks for itself. But because you like logical quibbles, why don't you try to explain it? Are you maintaining they were honest spies who couldn't bring themselves to lie?? Are you maintaining that some espionage would have been OK?? To the best of my knowledge you have never denied being an idiot. --Jack Upland 10:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Ethel Rosenberg's involvement.

This exchange is probably now incoherent because of removals. See #Unusual deletion.

I think the answer to your question is revealed by Julius' codename: "LIBERAL".:05:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, the Venona information is somewhat suspicious and there is no clear account of Ethel's involvement or not among scholars. As to why people felt/feel the way they do, that's a historical question; if you look into the history of it, it becomes more clear. One of the reasons is that the US government did convict them with a fairly weak case and gave them extremely harsh sentences (no other convicted spy, even those who did give dramatically more important information to the USSR, was ever sentenced to death; especially not for helping a country which, at the time they were spying, was an Allied power), which certainly didn't help. (I am ambivalent as to the overall guilt, by the way) --Fastfission 02:13, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure calling the USSR an Ally at the time is accurate. On paper, sure, they were, but in reality it was a marriage of convenience, the reality was that the UK was really an ally in that there was genuine good will there, but not so with the USSR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.41.204.3 (talk • contribs) 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Pitchka, you can find books that make almost any imaginable claim about this case. The issue is to find ones that are scholarly, reputable, and weren't rapidly demolished by other scholars who reviewed them.

I've been following the discussion of the Venona documents, although not super closely. You give a book title, but it might be more useful to name authors. Whose book is this? That would make it easier to track down what others have had to say about its scholarship... -- Jmabel | Talk 21:19, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

For a review of that from the opposite camp, see this review from The Nation. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:44, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Pitchka, you seem to misunderstand the main historical disputes about the Rosenbergs. It is generally thought that Julius certainly passed information on to the USSR, but it is not as clear about Ethel. Aside from this, there is a question of whether their trial was fair and whether their punishments were worthy of their accused crimes. Related to that is the question of whether their data was really of any use: compared to the data given by Fuchs and Hall, it was practically worthless (Greenglass knew very little about the bomb). Aside from even that, there is the question of whether their work for the USSR was to help to USSR against the USA or if it was to help the USSR against the Nazis, which are different questions (a motivational ambiguity not present in American law but represented in British law; because Klaus Fuchs gave information to another Allie he was given the relatively light sentence of 14 years, whatever the later history had the USSR become). I think you'd do good to try and see what other people are saying rather than just wildly characterizing everyone who disagrees with you as a dupe. --Fastfission 03:07, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ah, nothing shows a cooperative attitude like sticking your later response before my earlier one... -- Jmabel | Talk 20:30, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

UTC)

Thank you, FastFusion, right on the mark. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:14, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Take your biased ramblings elsewhere, Pitchka, we are interested in facts, not political rants. 68.96.57.173

Unusual deletion

Pitchka made this pair of unusual edits, which removed his/her comments from the section #Ethel Rosenberg's involvement., claiming to "revoke permission" to use them, which I believe is a bit like unscrambling an egg. As a result, the section as it stands is probably extremely difficult to follow. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Judge's speech

Can someone verify the grammatical accuracy of the judge's speech? It is currently quite confusing. (amon April 29, 2005)

The grammar is correct if old-fashioned: the use of 'but' to be 'other than' and the phrase 'millions more of innocent people' where we would say 'millions more innocent people.'--Jack Upland 11:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Venona

The November 14 document has this: "Direction of probationers will be continued through LIBERAL"; Ethel was one of the "probationers", i.e., LIBERAL was her case officers. The November 27 document was a response to Moscows' inquiry about a new probationer not directly being supervised by an MGB officer. This same evidence, (though not from Venona source) was used by both the prosecution and jury. Nobs 21:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't find the Nov 14 to be an explicit reference to Ethel at all -- it only is if you make assumptions about her involvement in the first place, which is begging the question that the document was cited to answer (whether she had participated). --Fastfission 20:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Confession & Commutation

I note that NOBS doesn't believe there is any evidence that the Rosenbergs were induced to confess and 'name names' by the prospect of commutation to life imprisonment. But Doctorow writing in the late 60s (his Book of Daniel was published in 1971) gives this detail, so the story must have been current back then. Linuxlad 13:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Book of Daniel is a work of fiction, I'm not sure it is the best source to use. --Fastfission 20:37, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But of course I'm aware of this :-) Nonetheless, Doctorow is writing with ideas that were current at the time so the idea that they were offered commutation in exchange for info. is not _just_ an idle speculation. Linuxlad 21:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not being a lawyer, it is my layman's understanding that a guilty plea in any capital crime always spare's the life of the accused. And I can develope the sources that said a guilty plea would have spared them (for now, see Haynes & Klehr, it is not unsymapathetic to the Rosenbergs execution, basically says they were something of the public patsies & fall guys for the larger coverup of conspiracy that took place and was not revealed til Venona. Also, Venona probably couldn't have been used against them because of "hearsay" etc)Nobs01 02:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your "layman's understanding" is simply wrong. A guilty plea will not inherently stave off capital punishment. What is common in the U.S. is the explicit "plea bargain" by which prosecution and defense agree to skip a trial, with the defendant pleading guilty in exchange for a reduced sentence. But these require a specific negotiation in each instance. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:07, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Evidently a plea bargain was negotiated then. I came accross reference to it in passim; this article however is not my main focus at the moment so I havent been able to follow up and corroborate it. There may have even been a reference to someone pleading with Ethel to cop the plea for the sake of the children and she refused, thinking the Communist Party would look after the children. Nobs01 05:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was under the impression -- from Radosh and Milton's The Rosenberg File, I think -- that the point of trying to give Ethel the death penalty was to induce a guilty plea in Julius (that is, if Julius pleaded, then they would spare Ethel's life). I believe he cites memos from Saypol to this effect. In any event, I am pretty sure there is hard evidence that the death penalties were seen as both sending powerful messages and hopefully getting them to talk (though I believe J. Edgar Hoover famously and accurately predicted that the double-execution would have a "psychological effect" on the populace which would cause a lot of them to doubt the entire endeavor). Anyway, I'll try to source these when I get a chance... in general I think the Radosh book is the best thing I've read on the trial (most thorough and balanced, anyhow). --Fastfission 02:36, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Surely the different treatment of Greenglass (who was actually at Los Alamos) is a clear indication.--Jack Upland 11:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Executed secret agents

As far as I can see, this belongs to the "Executed secret agents" category. I added it, but perhaps a "secret agent" has a narrower definition. If it is wrong, feel free to fix it. (And if it is right, delete this comment). --Taejo 7 July 2005 18:57 (UTC)

Cut from article

I cut this recent addition:

"It has been suggested that the prosecution of the Rosenbergs was an effort by the United States government to "send a message" that would help stop the leaking of information about the U.S. nuclear program to the Soviets."

Given the controversial nature of the topic, an uncited conjecture about the government's (or the Rosenbergs') motivations has no place here. If someone has a cited author to whom to attribute the conjecture, great, then put it back in the article with attribution. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:56, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this can be attributed to some high level figures, but I'll look into a good citation. --Fastfission 02:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

X-line

"Anatoly A. Yakovlev the Soviet vice consul in New York City" was changed to "Anatoly A. Yakovlev of the KGB X-line in New York City". I have no idea what "X-line" is supposed to mean. I see it on quite a few KGB-related articles, always with out explanation or a link. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:02, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Generally, we take it to mean "technical line". But like so many things about Soviet intelligence, like its name (Cheka, OGPU, GPU, NKVD, MGB, KGB), parallel organizations (KGB illegals, GRU, GRU illegals, Comintern, CPUSA secret apparatus), code names being changed, priorities being changed, it is difficult to be precise in any given timeframe. So an insertion like "technical line" may be OK for now, however it is subject to revision to something like, "scientific technical line", or "atomic technical line", or "military technical line", or few other possibilities. nobs 16:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I hope you will agree, though, that the term is obscure enough that wherever used it deserves either an explanation or a link. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:50, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Very much so. Actually, it may be useful to introduce many common jargon terms from Soviet intelligence into the English language since it meaning to often gets lost in translation. nobs 16:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Probably an article on each of these (or on several closely related terms jointly) is in order, rather than duplicate the explanation, especially because in many cases there is liable to be disagreement over the precise meaning, and probably some terms changed meaning in different contexts. Then we link when using the terms. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm seriously considering it. I was thinking in terms of Rezidentura, which is somewhat analagous to "CIA station", with various subheadings like Rezident, X-line, I or Informational line, P or political line, etc. nobs 05:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Why not revert to the original, or use something generic like 'diplomat' or 'KGB officer' (if known). With these issues it is inevitably going to be a matter of speculation what secret service position someone held, and even if possible the use of precise jargon conveys nothing to the general reader.--Jack Upland 02:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Omission

Why is the documentation from the Russian government post-Cold-War and the reference to Feklisov mentioned in the "trial and conviction" section but not in the "posthumous revelations" section? Ken Arromdee 18:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Added objection

This was just added to the article by user 69.25.31.161:

(McCarthy was a Senator, and in no way connected to HUAC, which was run by members of the House of Representatives. The above statement saying that he targeted US Citizens is disingenuous. Project VENONA proved that McCarthy was correct, and that he should have even widened his search.)

I've pulled it from the article for now as it's more of an objection than a rewrite, but I wanted to post it here so some editors can take a look. My own reaction is that I'm not really an expert on this, but it does seem that the VENONA decryptions are sufficiently covered under "Posthumous revelations", and while McCarthy wasn't on HUAC, I've certainly seen clips myself of him talking about "anti-American activities"; I don't think that's an unfair characterization here, but of course I'd be happy to see evidence to the contrary. --Dvyost 17:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with your action. The article does not assert McCarthy had anything to do with HUAC nor does it even mention HUAC. As for McCarthy and VENONA, that's a different question alltogether, one covered on the McCarthy page. --Fastfission 18:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)