Posted on 01/23/2004 1:52:40 AM PST by kattracks
A little bit of embarrassment seems to be in order: An article in Sunday's L.A. Times Calendar section (seems to be unavailable unless you're a subscriber) reports on a new documentary about Julius and Ethel Rosenberg ("an exceptional documentary, short-listed for this year's Academy Award, a compelling emotional narrative laced with explosive political material"), who were convicted in the 1950s of spying for the Soviets, and executed for it. The documentary was directed by their granddaughter, Ivy Meeropol. The article is not by any means entirely pro-Rosenberg, but I was still struck by the second paragraph below:
But what also drove [Ivy] was the fact that "I was tired of the simplistic version of this story, what history remembers, the way everyone thinks they stole the secret of the atomic bomb. I knew this wasn't true, I knew they were more than that, and I wanted to bring their story to people who don't know it or have closed their minds to it. And I needed to know what was worth standing up for, what they were willing to die for."
What this involved was re-creating the world of left-wing activists from which the Rosenbergs emerged, entering it through interviews with friends like Osheroff who are still alive and remember a time of hunger and privation, when, as one says, "you had to be dead from the neck up not to feel radical change was necessary." People, Ivy says, who were "idealists with good intentions who sincerely believed the Soviet Union was a better way. It's painful that people continue to dismiss that, and I wanted to reclaim it for them."Now I'm sure that some, perhaps many, American Communists, including those who continued supporting the Soviet Union into the 1950s -- past the Ukrainian famine, past the purges, past the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, past the enslavement of Eastern Europe -- were misguided "idealists with good intentions." True, to remain "misguided idealists," they had to have willfully blinded themselves to the reality of what the Soviets were doing. But human beings have a remarkable capacity to do that sort of thing.
Still, the fact remains that either these "left-wing activists" were evil (i.e., not really misguided idealists, but people who fully supported slaughter and tyranny in the name of Communism) or fools: People who failed to realize that Communism would create more hunger and privation, as well as suppressing freedom and killing people. And at the same time, history shows that many of those who didn't "feel radical change was necessary" (a category that of course includes many New Dealers, conservatives, moderates, and many others) -- who were supposedly "dead from the neck up" -- were smarter, wiser, and more humane.
I don't think I'm asking for much here -- just a bit of embarrassment. "Our friends were dupes of the Soviets, and it turns out many of their opponents were actually smarter and more morally well-grounded than they were, but we should remember that they were just misguided idealists with good intentions" might work. I'm not sure whether it will work for everyone, but it's at least plausible. "You had to be dead from the neck up not to feel radical change was necessary," said when many of the "dead from the neck up" have now been obviously vindicated by history and those who supported pro-Soviet "radical change" have been proven to be fools or worse, is not a strong argument.
Unless, of course, after all that has been discovered about the awful history of the 20th century, you still think that your pro-Soviet buddies were actually right. In which case, I wish you had spent 1937 in the "better way" of the Soviet Union, rather than in the "hunger and privation" of the United States. Or that part of 1937 before you really did become "dead from the neck up."
Eugene Volokh teaches First Amendment law at UCLA School of Law.
The only problem I have with their treatment was that their deaths did not involve more suffering than it did.
Misguided idealists or not, what they did was pure treason that potentially could have ended with their neighbors and even their own children being incinerated in thermonuclear fire.
Those who insist on defending this Communist trash and their evil deeds believe that there should be no reprisals at all against those who would sell us all into slavery or death, it seems.
In my own life, I give Progressives, Socialists, and Communists no quarter. In debate I loudly get in their faces and scream about the 100 million murders that were committed in the name of their so-called "idealism", and insist that they justify the slaughter. Not one of them can. It's always the same old "but true Communism has never been tried, it's a humane system that got corrupted by power-hungry men" pack of excuses.
This is countered with the accusation that their "humane system" has no checks or balances to keep the Communist state in line, and that those who seek absolute power will always gravitate to positions of leadership in such a system. In other words, their "humane system" is in fact a recipe for mass murder.
Usually by this point in the conversation the Red is either becoming frightened at my vehemence and wrath, or is getting angry enough to throw a punch. Either way suits me fine. Either way it goes, I assert my domination over them, and send them scurrying back to the coffeehouse to fantasize about their "perfect utopia for the downtrodden", while the rest of us work on bettering our own lives through hard work and sacrifice.
/trying to quit smoking and feeling the righteous anger! Grrrrr!
Soviet body count: Artificial famine, gulags, the Great Terror Purges - around 40 million. Mao Zedong: 60 million.
Also, the Soviet advantage during the Korean war (having the atomic bomb, thanks to them). This caused many American soldiers' lives.
I would have pulled the switch myself on these evil entities.
This grandaughter's feeble attempt at revisionism is pathetic. What next, Stalin's grandchildren saying he was just misrepresented?
Thanks for this info.
Ditto for me. G-d Bless You.
Yes, idealists with good intentions are still paving the Road to Hell. They never cease. And they never learn.
"to remain 'misguided idealists,' they had to have willfully blinded themselves to...reality. But human beings have a remarkable capacity to do that sort of thing."
Yes, don't they? This makes them more culpable, not less.
"Still, the fact remains that either these 'left-wing activists' were evil...or fools."
Yes, scoundrels and fools. They're still at it. They have taken over the Democrat Party, the "Liberal" enclaves of America, American academia, and the "mainstream newsmedia". It's hard to say which is more dangerous, but it's probably the fools; they are the enablers of the scoundrels, and scoundrels, at least, take a rest once in a while.
Or in a broader context:
"Liberals", Democrats, and leftists today are scoundrels and fools who are misguided idealists, ready to pave the Road to Hell with their good intentions. MANY of their opponents are actually smarter and more morally well-grounded than they are.
The question that occurs to me about these hypocrites is why they continue to live in and enjoy the freedoms of such an awful country as the U.S. If Meeropol and her siblings think Communism is the answer they should immediately get their pampered red butts to Cuba or North Korea to walk the walk.
I heard that! And on the authority of Marx himself, no less! -- LOL!
Only a book Marx.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.