Son of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg Admits One Parent’s Guilt
So when he writes that his parents “were innocent of stealing the secret of the atomic bomb,” he is only partially correct, since while they did not steal the secret, they did indeed seek to steal any information pertinent to building a successful a-bomb that they could get their hands on. As for his argument that it “would have been next to impossible” to explain to he and his brother what he calls a “subtle distinction” between stealing atomic secrets and blanket innocence, he makes no sense whatsoever.
As we now know, the secrets they stole were many, they helped serve the Soviet military machine, and they were classified and not meant to be given to any power, especially to the Soviets. Hence Meeropol’s so-called distinction is a distinction without a difference.
The rest of Robert Meeropol’s blog reveals his attempt to square the circle; his determination to still honor his parents while now acknowledging what he calls their “uncritical support for the USSR,” which actually was not that which characterizes the attitude of the whole group of US fellow-travelers, but was actual espionage on Stalin’s behalf. He still confuses what his parents did with what he calls a “more humane and just society [that] rests on the activism of ordinary citizens with family concerns” that they should take into consideration.
I and most Americans do not confuse activism for a just society with spying for a foreign power, especially one that virtually represented the totalitarian state in its ugliest manifestation. So Meeropol writes that although he questions his parents’ judgment, “I remain proud of them, even if my father did what he could to aid the Soviet Union throughout the 1940s and my mother supported him.”
Sadder even is his final sentence, in which he writes “my parents acted with integrity, courage and in furtherance of righteous ideals, and passed their passion for social justice on to me and my brother.” Their would-be integrity and courage consisted of lying about what they were doing, sacrificing their own children for Stalin’s cause, betraying their own country, and exemplified a lot of terrible things, none of them having anything whatsoever to do with furthering “righteous ideals.” Like what, I would ask him: forced collectivization of the land, the murder of hundreds of thousands, the establishment of the Gulag, the path to aggressive war in the new post-war period? What does any of this have to do with “social justice,” unless he is indicating that this was the goal that was to occur after many eggs were broken to make the perfect omelet?
One has only to look at the many comments on Meeropol’s blog to find out how the Old Left thinks. One commentator writes: “In the case of your parents I am not bothered by the fact that they were communists, nor by the apparent fact that at least your father supplied information to the USSR. Many would do the same even today in the hope of achieving peace.
On the other hand I am bothered by the reaction of a government (now and in the 1950s) that labels all dissent as treason.” The writer, like all good Old Leftists, does not realize that if any nation criminalized dissent, it was the Soviet Union. And this person would spy for that state today, if it still existed.
Another writes that history proves that the Soviet Union under Stalin was right and that Truman was wrong. Therefore “History is verifying the truths that motivated their bold actions.” In other words, they were right to spy, and history should honor them. Another relates the story of an old German Jewish refugee he knew, who also was a spy for the Soviets. This person writes: “He explained that many communists and sophisticated observers of history believed that the only sure way to prevent a return of fascism and to better the chances for a peaceful world, was to work for the social and technological development of the Soviet Union.”
They believed that, and obviously most of them still do. These are all the people who revere the two Rosenberg sons, and want to comfort them by assuring them their parents are heroes to them for betraying the United States.
I now wait for comments from Robert’s older brother Michael. In the past few years, it has become obvious they both look at their parents’ espionage somewhat differently, although they have often appeared together on panels. What does Michael Meeropol think, and will he too make his thoughts public?
And, finally, will Tony Hiss, Alger Hiss’s son who wrote one book in defense of his father many years ago, have second thoughts as well? Will he too stun the world with his own public reconsideration?
Time will tell. I never thought that one of the Rosenbergs’ children, despite all of his confusion, would ever admit publicly that his father was guilty. It is a good sign that finally, it has become hard for the truth to be ignored after so much evidence has been accumulated about the Rosenbergs’ guilt. There is still a long way to go for their many apologists, but at least a first step has been taken.
Interesting that the choice of actions that led to the punishment of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg was entirely those of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. And yet, still they lied about it in the letter they wrote to the own children.
So, where was or were the first decisions made by the two, which led to further and deeper involvement in the Muscovian ambition to destroy and take over the United States of America? To involve themselves in this treachery was among the first choices they made to it, and only led to deeper and more risky tasks in order to achieve it.
In other words, they would have been killed, rubbed out, if they had ever had a change of heart, because you do not leave the underworld of communist underground infiltration and secrecy. Consult Whittaker Chambers ‘Witness’ for accounts of those who tried, but weren’t secretive enough, about their plans top leave. It took the equivalent of a modern day self imposed “witness protection program” to survive intact if you made plans to leave the underground. With no mistakes made on your way.
The thing that bothers me about past and present double-dealers is how gutless they are when it comes to walking the walk. One has to listen to their drivel of hatred for the free world and endure all the efforts to destroy it.
But none of the ding-bats of looney tunes utopia ever actually immigrates to the country of their dreams. No sir, they just squat themselves down in the lands of freedom and moan and groan all the day long. They don’t even know what an eyesore they present.
When these flapping tongues actually pack up and leave to walk the walk, it would be at that time I might have some respect for them.
But as long as they desperately cling to freedom, while promoting the destruction of it; they are a people of no good account.
Actually, some did move to the land of their Utopian dreams. Among them was a young, British, communist journalist by the name of Malcolm Muggeridge. He and his wife were soon disillusioned as the truth surrounded them in all its ugliness. For the entire story of his return to reason read his autobiography, Chronicles of Wasted Time. It’s one of the best books I’ve ever read.
Further to what Barbara has said, another radical that left the US for Russia after Lenin seized power was Emma Goldman. GOldman had actually been born in Tsarist Russia but had emigrated to the United States many years before. She was rounded up with many other radicals in the Palmer Raids in 1919. She had some legal avenues to take to prevent her deportation but made only half-hearted efforts. Basically, she and several of the others who had been rounded up looked forward to a trip to the Promised Land – Lenin’s Russia – so they had little reason to try to stay in the United States.
Goldman did NOT enjoy her return to her homeland. Her memoir, My Dissilustionment in Russia, makes that clear. You can read the memoir here: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/goldman/works/1920s/disillusionment/index.htm. It’s a quick read, consisting of 32 very brief chapters, and is quite interesting. She returned to the West in just under two years.
Mr. Radosh – A couple of things. The first is to show my pedantry. In the first sentence of the fifth paragraph you write: “What he neglected to say is that this story, first outlined decades ago by my co-author Joyce Milton and I … ” It should be: ‘ … by my co-author Joyce Milton and me … ” That is because the word, me, is the object of the preposition, by.
The second is to ask you a question you did not really explore in your book with Ms. Milton. The question is about the lawyer the Rosenbergs had. That lawyer seemed particularly inept (as least the way he is described in the book). After I finished the book, I got the distinct the impression that the Rosenbergs might have had a more favorable outcome, had the lawyer been a good lawyer. If I remember correctly, the lawyer was a member of the Communist Party. The question is, did you and Ms. Milton ever consider the possibility that the Party assigned the lawyer to the Rosenbergs because he was inept? The Party would have accomplished two goals by doing that: The first would to be make martyrs out of the Rosenbergs for propaganda purposes; and the second would be to make sure they could never talk if they ever came to regret what they had done.
The third point is my simple amazement of how many my co-religionists were Communists. I simply cannot understand how Jews can be so stupid as not to see how evil Communism is. That is especially so, given the anti-Semitism brewing in the Soviet Union at that time.
Communism was popular with Jews because it was absolutely opposed to the reactionary and venomously anti-Semitic Russian right wing, and to similar forces elsewhere.
In the 1920s, the new Communist regime in the USSR was substantially led by Jews – at one point, the great struggle in the Politburo was between Trotsky (a Jew) and the troika of Kamenev, Zinoviev, and Stalin (two of whom were Jews).
The Communists abolished all the Tsarist restrictions on Jews. Unshackled, Jews immediately moved into the top levels of all segments of Russian society – art, science, industry, and government (the last including the Party and the secret police). It would be surprising if this had not won support among world Jewry.
There was a reaction later, with covert quotas and exclusion of Jews from the top political level – but it was nothing like the days of the Black Hundreds.
It was not till the 1970s, with the USSR arming Israel’s enemies and imprisoning the refuseniks that Jews began to view the USSR as hostile.
I should add, “popular with politically liberal, non- or weakly religious Jews”; which was the most common position among American Jews.
And by popular, I don’t mean “majority support”, but positive views by a substantial proportion. A pop record is considered very popular if 10% of the audience buys it.
Rich Rostrom – I don’t disagree with the first part of you say because imperial Russia was indeed anti-Semitic. My question was really directed towards Jews being Communists in the post-World War II era. Certainly when I was growing up (late 1950s through mid-1960s) it was quite clear to me, even as a youngster, that Communism was a bad. (Today, I would say, evil.) The reason was the absence of freedom and the ever-presence of fear. (First it was the NKVD and then the KGB.) If I could seee it, why then couldn’t other Jews see it? Of course, I ask myself just about the same question today regarding Jews who are “liberals.” How can they be “liberals” when, ultimately, “liberalism” will be inimical to America and then to them? (I have used quotes around liberal and liberalism because they are the opposite of what they claim to be.)
Too many Serbs made the same mistake of supporting the Communists, and for similar reasons (persecution and slaughter of Serbs during the Nazi occupation of the Balkans).
The enemy of my enemy is very rarely my friend.
“The enemy of my enemy is my enemy’s enemy. No more. No less”. Rule 29 of “The seven habits of highly effective Pirates”. Schlock Mercenary.
@ Jack:
I have an older version of Rosenberg Files, and what I got from it and I could be wrong was there was a combination of CP puppetry, and Bloch’s personality/personal motivations which came into play. You notice Ron writes about the way Bloch dealt with other non-CP approved attorneys who wanted to assist.
I think maybe most important–the Rosenberg’s own psychology.
It really struck me when Ron writes about how the couple went to their death, how the government were waiting at Sing Sing ready to take confession, as well as how the defense team/CP prevented outside liberal sympathizers from any last-minute meetings with the pair.
Again I could be wrong about the above details, it’s been awhile since I read it.
Ron, if you are answering questions, I was curious, do you know is Myles Lane related to Mark Lane?
Red Diaper Blues – The reason I asked my question was that it seemed to me too convenient for the Party for the Rosenbergs to be executed. So I am curious why Radosh and Milton did not think of it or look into it.
I got that impression from reading the book, that the defense mounted was not of the Rosenberg’s lives, but of the CP-USA. There were a few possible scenarios, but it seemed the party controlled the defense team, resisted outside lawyers from helping, and steered the whole thing in a self-destructive way, even going so far as to prevent last-minute meetings with their supporters just before the execution.
The way for them to live was in admitting to spying, naming names, taking apart the network at least, no doubt pressure probably to participate in extending the dismantaling as far into the left as would have been possible at the time.
That choice it seems was probably impossible for the Rosenbergs, from what I know of them. I mean they wouldn’t do it for their children, so you know where their priorities were. The non-defense worked mainly because of the Rosenberg’s particularly fanatical Communism and personal psychology–which is key, but a whole other discussion.
As far as the execution, for the radical left martyrdom of the Rosenbergs (or Sacco & Vanzetti, Pelltier, Mumia, etc.) is the gift that keeps giving.
It’s complex, to understand the entire thing, deeply, is beyond me, especially to write. this is probably redundant, but I find the whole thing compelling with many lessons relevant to today…
Red Diaper Blues -
Thanks. I have many of the same impressions.
Since the fact of the matter is that they were guilty, it’s a good thing they were found guilty. My grandfather was a lawyer and was asked to defend one of the other (much lesser) accused spies. He met with the accused and looked at the evidence. He determined that (a) the accused was 100% guilty and (b) he could get the accused off on legal technicalities. He decided to decline the case, something for which I always respected him. That individual recently died and her daughter defended her actions as seeking social justice and equality. Same load of manure, no less indefensible.
Both Rosenbergs were guilty. Period.
And also, Joe McCarthy was essentially vindicated on his basic premises by the Venona files, if not in his methods, tactics and a number of his targets.
Hoover used McCarthy to publicize the extent to which Soviet agents and their “useful idiots” had infiltrated the US government. McCarthy took the heat and it eventually killed him, but the fact remains: McCarthy (and Hoover) were correct about the “red menace”.
Unfortunately, too many Americans still believe in the siren song of socialism. To the American left, about 20% of the population, Obama still walks on water and Lenin’s doctrine of revolution is still the ideal method for “fundamentally transforming” those ralcitrant capitalists.
The question that I’ve never heard answered persuasively is how McCarthy knew the things that he raised in his accusations. Has anyone ever come forward to acknowledge serving as a conduit of information between Hoover and McCarthy? Have any Freedom of Information requests proven the connection? Or did McCarthy have other sources, like doubters within the CPUSA (Communist Party of the USA) that were feeding him his information?
Leaks of Venona material to McCarthy does seem the most plausible scenario but surely there should be some proof if that happened. Is anyone aware of any such proof?
“He explained that many communists and sophisticated observers of history believed that the only sure way to prevent a return of fascism and to better the chances for a peaceful world, was to work for the social and technological development of the Soviet Union.” Don’t you just love the fact that despite the murders of millions and the despair and totalitarianism that continues to be revealed by the demonic Communists, they still push the canard that fascism was worse??? THEY ARE FASCISTS!!! And they are also the progenitors of the lie that fascism and communism are diametrically opposed. They are LIARS. And they will never admit it.
GOOD.VERY GOOD ROBERT,NOW,TAKE A DEEP BREATH,AND GO JUMP OFF YOUR UPPER-WEST SIDE CONDO,COMMIE SCUM!
Mr. Radosh:
Meeropol has clung to his parents’ final lies to him for so long and so hard that he simply cannot let go of them and recognize the entirety of their deceit.
So why should his elder brother?
It is from misplaced loyalty like this that the Germans instituted Sippenhaft, and the North Koreans their practice of “collective retribution” against the families of those accused of disloyalty to the State.
Communists forsook truth for the Party…the Party dictated their truth. Sad and pathetric figures like these two aging men are the walking wounded bearing the mental and emotional scars of growing up in a nursery of lies.
Bilgeman, thanks for your insight. I cannot imagine the inner turmoil affecting these two brothers throughout their entire adult lives, as family loyalty is our first natural loyalty. Since the Soviet files, dead people’s diaries/letters, and the FBI records have now been made public regarding the CPUSA, the stark reality cannot be hidden. To try to deal with the truth must require some courage.
Joseph McCarthy is another victim of the Soviet Union, as American communists destroyed his good name; only recently a politician used the term ‘Mccarthyism’ to demagogue a conservative seeking answers about radicalization of Muslim youth in the U.S.
Those were the days, when spies spied for principle and were executed when caught, tried, and convicted. Every spy caught since then has spied for money or was having girl or boy friend problems (the current PFC Manning forced to sleep in the nude to prevent his custodial suicide), and none of them were executed–it does remind me of pimps, politicians, and prostitutes providing treats and tricks and other constituency services in a law enforcement free zone where everyone gets paid off. This lack of seriousness doubtless explains why groveling has now become the accepted substitution for victory during “police actions.” Apparently “loose lips sinks ships” is just a cost of doing business, a sort of expected built in planned absolescence or our sieve like open for smuggling foreign border, and being humane and progressive does require more people–corrections officers, administrators, and staff psychologists– on the payroll to supervise and feed the spies who would otherwise have had a date with the undertaker. Oh well, the gravediggers will still get the spies in their old age, and millions of public dollars later. The lawyers have it rigged so there is no cost savings with executions anymore.
Don,
Spot-on
“The lawyers have it rigged so there is no cost savings with executions anymore”
Applies to a lot more than spies.
The Rosenbergs claimed innocence because they truly believed that betraying their country was moral. How incredibly pathetic.
“Son of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg Admits One Parent’s Guilt”
Who cares?
They’re dead. It’s good that they’re dead. Opinion of spawn of dead commie ratbags not important.
End of story.
Wow!
We should just call you “Surly Dave” from now on.
“They’re dead. It’s good that they’re dead. Opinion of spawn of dead commie ratbags not important”
I enjoyed details in the article, but I love seeing the truth distilled to such a solid lump of…well…TRUTH!
“Fuck them, and everyone who thinks like them” is rude…surly even.
But its still the truth. No matter how rough the edges.
Go Dave!
I like to hear the truth also. Here’s another truth. Were i to meet this lump whom someone else referred to as RR, at 3 am, in an alley dark and lonely, it would a great privilege for me to pick up a stick and beat him on his perforated behind.
It’s true. The antics of traitors like the Rosenbergs does bring out the gruff in me.
“my parents acted with integrity, courage and in furtherance of righteous ideals, and passed their passion for social justice on to me and my brother.”
Ah yes, the catch-all, the over-arching free pass, for any and all wrong behavior: “but we were in pursuit of social justice.”
“He explained that many communists and sophisticated observers of history believed that the only sure way to prevent a return of fascism and to better the chances for a peaceful world, was to work for the social and technological development of the Soviet Union.”
I’m sure that’s a mighty big comfort to the millions and millions of totally innocent people murdered by various communist regimes over the last century or so.
While I can certainly understand and even forgive a child’s loyalty to his parent’s memory, the rest of the them are simply idiots and not even particularly useful these days. I await the outpouring of affection when the old commie, Pete Seeger, finally cashes in his chips. It will be barf inducing.
I think you’re being a mite hard on the Meeropols. They want to think well of their parents, after all.
And it is not a lie to describe the Rosenbergs as hideously misguided idealists.
Some of the worst crimes against humanity have been perpetrated by misguided idealists.
The Rosenbergs were deluded by the apparent positive aspects of the Soviet regime; they didn’t understand what it was really like.
You raise an excellent point, Rich. I’m afraid I don’t know nearly enough about the Rosenbergs to know what their heart-felt views of the Soviet Union were. Many of the commenters here have remarked on the well-documented atrocities of the Communists in the Soviet Union – and other countries – over the years but those are mostly operating on the basis of 20/20 hindsight.
While the atrocities that began with Lenin’s October (1917) Revolution were not completely invisible outside of Russia, it is not particularly clear to me how well known it would have been to the Rosenbergs in the years between 1917 and their executions in the early 50s. It seems at least distantly possible that they might not have known about the horrors perpetrated by Lenin and then his successor Stalin. I don’t know what newspapers and books they read, who they spent time with, who their teachers were, how many Soviet apologists they encountered, etc. etc. It is just possible that they simply didn’t know about most of the horrors in the Soviet Union or that they had been persuaded that these horrors were mostly lies and exaggerations.
This is not to exculpate them. They unquestionably committed treason against their own country and did so knowingly and without duress. But a lot of smart people were duped by the Communists, at least for a time. And some were so well duped that they remained committed Communists right up until their last breaths.
“The significance of the younger Meeropol’s admission was well stated by Tablet magazine’s Marc Tracy, who writes that this is “perhaps the final wall of denial to fall in a case that has obsessed the American Jewish community for six decades,” and, I would add, that has been a linchpin of the American Left’s argument that the United States government was not only evil during the Cold War years, but was ready to kill regular American citizens because they were against the Truman administration’s anti-Soviet policies.”
“Obsessed the American Jewish community”? Well, if Tracy considers a handful of alter cockers a community, he may be onto something. And RR’s comment about the American left could not be more of a straw-man argument.
“… Ethel Rosenberg was not only aware of the network her husband had put in place, she herself suggested that her brother David Greenglass be recruited by the KGB since he was stationed at Los Alamos.”
Yeah, the scene probably played out something like this:
ETHEL: Julie, y’know David works at Los Alamos, and I was thinking…
JULIUS: David? Los Alamos? Gottenyu! I never thought of that!
“Will he [Tony Hiss] too stun the world with his own public reconsideration?”
“Stun the world”? Once again, RR has shrunk the world – as he did the Jewish community and American left – to a very small figment of his imagination.
……And George Soros was so young during the Holocaust. He really didn’t know what he was doing. He was only trying to survive.
Your attempt at sarcasm is excusable, jarmo, but RR is intelligent, and when he fantasizes about a monolithic Jewish community and American left, it’s troubling.
Joseph,
Please do not confuse the uncomfortable GENERALIZATION many people like me make of the political influence/leaning of the “presumed” Jewish political base, with antisemitism.
Indeed, I am a strong supporter of Israel…. An oasis of human sanity adrift in a sea of unspeakable madness. The furthest edge of morality on this planet, facing Satan himself on the other side of the door….the only OTHER country I would without question lay down my life defending.
But to put it simply, the “monolithic Jewish Community and the American Left” really does exis in this country, in the same way the “monolithic UNION community and the America Left” does.
A vocal MINORITY political/ideological base among the ranks of otherwise decent folks tends to control the “message”, and the influence of LENDING that message ($$$ contribution/union dues and/or PC lip service and PR credibility) to the usual, predictable suspect political causes.
Visibly successful Jews of Hollywood, the general media, entertainment and academia are heavily into the left wing of the democratic party, so much so that the mere PERCEPTION of a “conservative” or “right wing” counterbalance within in the those Jewish communities is non existent to outsiders. The PERCEPTION is, Jews as a ‘block” are liberal/left, and that’s the way the opinion makers want it to be.
This is so a political outsider disagreeing with leaderships messaging is made to question his own position, its credibility, and its potential acceptance. He is made to feel against the grain, against the best interests of the community of people he respects, so his advocacy for his position weakens in deference to HIS PERCEPTION of their general feelings on the matter…or if he persists, he labeled a closet antisemite by the “leadership” that controls the consensus of what is (and is NOT) a politically acceptable philosophy to promote.
The same occurs with Labor Unions. Very, very few blue collar machinists, carpenters, plumbers, electricians, and construction workers and TEACHERS I know, have the kind of liberal/socialist political and environmental views that their LEADERSHIP supports, and (exclusively) funnels their money to.
Anyone disagreeing with their political “stance” is an instant bigot, a snob, a capitalist/corporate robber-barron, union busting destroyer of the working class, or an uneducated trailer-park-white-trash thug. That is the cover the Union Leadership uses to steal from its members, and sell its influence to the re-distributive left.
The BASIC boiler plate is, Jews and Unions are in the Left pocket. And it is, unfortunately, BASICALLY true, MOST of the time, in terms of leadership messaging. Class warfare, racism, environmentalism, and yes, antisemitism are used as political bludgeons, like clockwork, to control the acceptance of preferred messaging by some fairly “monolithic” political machines in this country.
But acknowledging the influence of “group leadership messaging” is NOT an indictment of its members. The members are often the first VICTIMS of the leadership.
Why the “Monolithic Jewish Left” that controls the PERCEPTION of the general political leanings of Jewish Americans, (think: Hollywood, academia) always aligns itself with the real ENEMIES of peace, I dont know.
But can we honestly ask that question, without conjuring up fears of the next Pogrom?
A assure you, none will occur while THIS Catholic asshole still has a breath left in his body to fight.
Shalom
The Root ’83 – Some of us Jews ask the same questions about our co-religionists. For a people supposedly so intelligent and so middle-class, how can they support something that is becoming so destructive to America and ultimately to themselves and to Israel? I just do not understand it. If you read some of my earlier comments here, I have had the same question about why so many Jews took up the Communist cause in the post-World War II period. It just astounds that they could be so stupid.
RR, as you name him, has the intelligence of an earthworm.
Any nature video will prove my point.
Manny – If you don’t have anything intelligent to say, then don’t say it. Ad hominem attacks on the author or on any of the commenters add nothing to the conversation and are not appreciated. You only demean yourself by engaging in them.
You can try to spin this any way you like, but the bottom line is that a spy in his own country is a traitor, and nobody anywhere thinks that a traitor is anything but scum. Spy agencies use double agents, it is true; sometimes they have to. But they wash their hands afterward to get the filth off.
The antisemitism of traditional European societies have transformed great number of the Jews into leftists(even the burgeoisie) and the nazies had consolidated this.I see this as the act dictated by fright and dispair that in turn makes some people traitors.There is a tragic symmetry in Rosenbergs` treachery and the same of nuk traitor of Israel M. Vanunu(who is unrepentant).
I aree with most all of what Ron Radosh wrote,Though I would like to see more evidence of the level of Ethel’s guilt that made her deserving of the death penalty sentence.
But for McCarthy: He came in late to the anti-commie bloc, made a lot of unsubstantiated accusations, never uncovered an important commie operative, and went overboard in his accusations of the Army and Eisenhower as being commie coddlers. Worse he gave the radical left an easy target, and serves as an accusation against any one, such as Peter King,trying to defend America.
Your ascertions about McCarthy indicate that you may be a victim of the American educational system. I suggest that you read M. Stanton Evans’ carefully documented book “Blacklisted By History”, and then you may choose to reconsider some of your opinions.
“But for McCarthy: He came in late to the anti-commie bloc, made a lot of unsubstantiated accusations, never uncovered an important commie operative, and went overboard in his accusations of the Army and Eisenhower as being commie coddlers.”
You REALLY need to read “Blacklisted By History” by M. Stanton Evans to show how thoroughly you have been lied to.
The media smears you regurgitate here are factually incorrect, and Evans, using Venona decrypts and other sources exhaustively proves that the case against McCarthy and his efforts is largely bogus.
Do yourself a favor and read the book.
I have thought about the Meeropols quite a bit. It’s worth noting Robert has been and is still involved in promoting ultra-radicalism, and whitewashing illegal activity and domestic terror, in the worst way.
He just got finished celebrating the obviously insane Ray Luc Levasseur, featuring him as keynote speaker at the 20th anniversary party for his Rosenberg Fund for Children of Pipe Bombers and Cop Killers last October.
From Meeropol’s press release, describing his plans for a “gala event”, complete with complimentary hors d’ouevres and a cash bar:
…In November 2009, Ray Levasseur was scheduled to speak at the UMass Libraries’ annual Colloquium on Social Change. Shortly before the event, police organizations threatened to bring state troopers to picket and media outlets ran stories describing Ray as a “terrorist.” In the wake of this attention, UMass officials cancelled Ray’s appearance…
Notice how Meeropol mocks the media’s label of Levasseur as “terrorist”, by putting quotes around the word?
No party for Levasseur’s victim’s, though. Not to worry, they’re just Little Eichmanns.
Meeropol’s poster parent Levasseur referred to one victim—a totally innocent person (of color) simply running an errand at a county courthouse, who had a leg blown off by one of Levasseur’s “terrorist” bombs–as “collateral damage”.
1. If I recall correctly, in The Conquest of Happiness, Bertrand Russell said that he was not against lying for a good cause. He was writing in the 40s and gave the example of a Gestapo agent looking for someone who was Jewish. If asked, would Russell reveal the whereabouts of the hunted? No, he would mislead the police.
By the same token, Julius Rosenberg was not guilty of a lack of integrity in lying about his activities on behalf of the Soviet Union if he believed that they were for a good cause. His mistake was not understanding the government he was supporting.
2. Even if one admits that he was guilty, it does not necessarily follow that he and his wife should have been executed. One can still criticize the punishment.
3. Also, even if all of the facts of the case against the Rosenbergs are admitted to be true, one can still criticize the process of trial judgement as these are separate issues.
RE: “Julius Rosenberg was not guilty of a lack of integrity in lying about his activities on behalf of the Soviet Union if he believed that they were for a good cause”. How do you know Rosenberg was an idealist who thought the Soviets were the good guys? Maybe he had a grudge against the US? Maybe the high-minded idealist talk was just a cover for a vindictive little man who wanted to punish American for wrongs real or imagined?
“Even if one admits that he was guilty, it does not necessarily follow that he and his wife should have been executed.”
Giving the secrets of the atomic bomb to our mortal enemies and putting the lives of millions of Americans in danger — yep, that is worth the death penalty.
“2. Even if one admits that he was guilty, it does not necessarily follow that he and his wife should have been executed. One can still criticize the punishment.”
One doesn’t NEED to “admit” that they were guilty…they were convicted. They WERE guilty. Pushing a highly subjective reality where there is some question is called…lying.
“3. Also, even if all of the facts of the case against the Rosenbergs are admitted to be true, one can still criticize the process of trial judgement as these are separate issues.”
Sorry, comrade, but this doesn’t survive the laundering either.
In a case like the Rosenbergs, which was and still is wrapped up in a political agenda, any criticism or questioning is 99.999% likely to not be from an honest broker.
You can “admit” their guilt and “admit” the facts of the case, but then to criticize the process and the verdict serves WHAT purpose, exactly?
The only criticism I have of the verdict is that the two traitors should have been hanged, rather than electrocuted…why waste the electricity?
And their spawn should have been exiled to the Soviet Union that their parents’ gave their lives for.
Or does it not strike you as mighty peculiar that these Rosenberg/Meeropols decided to live their adult lives in the nation that executed their parents?
And how serious can one take their protestations of the alleged “injustices” done to their traitorous parents when their own children have consciously declined to carry the Rosenberg name?
ANOTHER LUMINARY WEIGHS IN. HE PREFERS HANGING.
It’s eco-friendly…no greenhouse gases or carbon emissions!
And the condemend expends the enrgy by mounting the scaffold, that is returned to him or her when they drop through the trap.
Done properly, there’s a certain elegance about a hanging.
A KKK member is likewise convinced of the righteousness of his position and whatever he may have done to advance his cause.
Ron,
This isn’t news. They did this back in 2008 when Sobell made his first confession
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/17/nyregion/17rosenbergs.html
Rodisch, what about activism for what one perceived as an unjust society, back then in those days, which is the way many Americans viewed society even those who weren’t Jewish. And what son wouldn’t defend his father, Radish, even your son would defend you, that is if you have a son or daughter. Listen to me carefully, shmuck, (censor if you are not going to allow this to be published then please just give it to Radish, alone). The Jewish community wasn’t proud to have one of them accused and found guilty of espionage, but WHY in hell do you continue to chew on this subject. What were you doing back then and your brother marxist david horowitz. Wouldn’t you have done the same thing if you had a chance. Now, mister, you have found out that it is a lot easier to make a living berating those of the past for their misdeeds. You, in your rarified atmosphere come out as a saint, and i don’t believe it, not for a one minute. Still, you caught yourself in time and corrected course. Right or Wrong?
I would never trust any turncoat, especially one like you who always preys on those others whose opinion you probably shared in those days.
YOU HAVE MY UNBOUNDED CONTEMPT FOR ALL TIME AND FOR YOUR STINKING ALLEGED CONSERVATIVE BROTHER IN ARMS, HOROWITZ.
AND WHEN DID THIS CHANGE COME ABOUT. WASN’T IT EARLY ENOUGH FOR YOU TO SERVE YOUR COUNTRY. WHERE DID YOU SERVE AND WHEN, YOU LOW-LIFE COCKSUCKER.
I serveed 3 yrs in Nam as a fighter pilot. I saw the people die and
the wounded in pain, shredded and blown apart.
I ASK AGAIN, WHAT IN HELL DID YOU DO.
WHENEVER I SEE YOUR NAME I PASS IT BY BUT THIS TIME I READ YOUR NONSENSICAL CRAP AND VOMITED.
Please tell me what the Vietnam War has to do with Ethel and Julius Rosenberg? That’s correct. Nothing.
Apparently your own, shrill rant, here, has everything to do with your very strange and narrow viewed perception of reality. Your service in Vietnam (or any war, for that matter) doesn’t justify your misconception(s) that you, or people like you, own the patent on debate topics. That you, and only people like you, own the patent on patriotism. That you, and only people like you, own the patent on heroism – just because you served in Vietnam.
Many people serve this country in a wide variety of ways, on the front lines, daily, and they are just as patriotic and just as worthwhile as you. Paramedics, nurses, dentists, firemen and women, policemen and women, security guards, military personnel, forest firefighters, game wardens, loggers, miners, farmers, tugboat crew members, deep sea fishermen and women, structural construction workers, airline personnel, sanitation workers, merchant marines, millers, line-men and women (power line installers), oil and gas drillers and personnel, cement manufacturers, taxi or limousine drivers, truck drivers, construction equipment operators, and slaughterhouse personnel are just a few of our country’s heroes whom risk being maimed, for life. And I didn’t even begin to discuss those associated with the nuclear energy industry, or those whom work, daily, with constant threats of bodily harm or death.
Even writers and reporters are heroes whom risk their lives just to get a story. Too bad we cannot ask Daniel Pearl what he thinks of your commentary, above, huh? Daniel Pearl didn’t serve in Vietnam, either, Manny, but to you Daniel Pearl only becomes eligible to discuss anything “patriotic” the moment he is beheaded? What utter nonsense and rubbish are you promoting, here, Manny?
Your LESS THAN 12 months of service in Vietnam doesn’t even compare with the several, overseas tours (12-15 months, each time, with MANY OF THEM serving a minimum of three tours, already) our men and women currently serve, on our behalf. That doesn’t mean that today’s military are any more patriotic nor deserving to own, what you falsely perceive as, the patent on patriotism, compassion, or the exclusive right to dictate what should and should not be discussed.
America is great because we can have reasonable, civil discussions without fear from reprisal from our government officials. However, your example, above, exhibits an unusual animosity against someone you don’t even know, personally. What the …?
Thank you Censor for publishing. I could have said a lot worse but i held back out of respect for PJ
Well executed ,America! The real disgrace is Britain’s failure to execute her own atomic traitors Nunn May and Fuchs. Fuchs was not Jewish but the son of a Lutheran minister. At the time there was capital punishment in Britain and a traitor like these was far more deserving of it than those executed for murder often under sudden emotional stress. Likewise Britain failed to round up Burgess,Maclean and Philby the upper middle class WASP traitors in the security services. In consequence thousands of our agents died in the Soviet empire notably the Estonian forest brothers. The naive British were worse than the paranoid Americans.
“… to explain to he and his brother” !
To him and his brother, please.
Otherwise a fine, pertinent and necessary article.
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg
The infamous Cold War espionage case of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg has taken a new turn. Their son, Robert Meeropol, after years of denial, has finally admitted “his father deserved to have been convicted of the legal charges that led to his parents’ execution. ‘Yes, he was guilty of conspiracy to commit espionage,’ ” Meeropol told New York Times reporter, Sam Roberts.
That must have come as a body blow to the Times, which has long been a leader in the leftist campaign to exonerate the Rosenbergs and, as late as 2003, fifty years after their executions, was still editorializing, ”The Rosenbergs case still haunts American history, reminding us of the injustice that can be done when a nation gets caught up in hysteria.”
There may have been a degree of hysteria at the time when American schoolkids hid under their desks to shield themselves from The Bomb, a thermonuclear explosion compliments of the U.S.S.R., and their parents read newspapers detailing the Russian threat but there was no injustice in the case of the Rosenbergs and their accomplice, Morton Sobell.
Like Julius and Ethel, Sobell also pled not guilty. However, he got away with a sentence of 30 years and served less than 18 at Alcatraz and other federal prisons. Forty-two years after his release, he admitted his own and Julius Rosenberg’s guilt, also to Sam Roberts. Asked whether he were a spy who fed American nuclear secrets to Uncle Joe Stalin, the aged Sobell tried to mitigate his crimes and replied, “Yeah, yeah, yeah, call it that. I never thought of it as that in those terms.”
If there were any injustice in the Rosenberg-Sobell trials it lay in the fact Sobell, and Ethel Rosenberg’s brother and another accomplice, David Greenglass, didn’t also fry in Sing Sing’s Old Sparky, its electric chair. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=4119)
The US Government carefully recorded the coded Russian Embassy telegraph traffic during WWII and the cold war. Years later, the invention of computers permitted decryption of the coded messages. Code named BRIDE/VENONA, these cables unquestionably confirm the Rozenberg’s guilt. Both Rosenbergs.