Robert, left, and Michael Rosenberg in June 1953.
Posted on 06/15/2003 6:43:14 AM PDT by Pharmboy
Robert, left, and Michael Rosenberg in June 1953.
Fifty years ago Thursday, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed in the electric chair at Sing Sing. Their execution, originally set for 11 p.m. on Friday, June 19, 1953, was rescheduled for 8 p.m. to avoid conflict with the Jewish sabbath.
"They were to be killed more quickly than planned," the playwright Arthur Miller wrote, "to avoid any shadow of bad taste."
A shadow lingers.
"I grew up believing Ethel and Julius were completely innocent," Robert Meeropol, who was 6 years old in 1953, says of the Rosenbergs, his parents. "By the time I completed law school in 1985, however, I realized that the evidence we had amassed did not actually prove my parents' innocence but rather only demonstrated that they had been framed."
After digesting newly released American decryptions of Soviet cables a decade later, Mr. Meeropol came to a revised conclusion. "While the transcriptions seemed inconclusive, they forced me to accept the possibility that my father had participated in an illegal and covert effort to help the Soviet Union defeat the Nazis," he writes in his new memoir, "An Execution in the Family: One Son's Journey" (St. Martin's Press).
Of course, the Rosenbergs weren't executed for helping the Soviets defeat the Nazis, but as atom spies for helping Stalin end America's brief nuclear monopoly. They weren't charged with treason (the Russians were technically an ally in the mid-1940's) or even with actual spying. Rather, they were accused of conspiracy to commit espionage — including enlisting Ethel's brother, David Greenglass, through his wife, Ruth, to steal atomic secrets from the Los Alamos weapons laboratory where he was stationed as an Army machinist during World War II. Mr. Greenglass's chief contribution was to corroborate what the Soviets had already gleaned from other spies, which by 1949 enabled them to replicate the bomb dropped on Nagasaki. (He confessed, testified against his sister and brother-in-law and was imprisoned for 10 years; Ruth testified, too, and was spared prosecution.)
As leverage against Julius, Ethel was also indicted on what, in retrospect, appears to have been flimsy evidence. The government didn't have to prove that anything of value was delivered to the Soviets, only that the participants acted to advance their goal.
"When you're dealing with a conspiracy, you don't have to be the kingpin, you have to participate," says James Kilsheimer, who helped prosecute the Rosenbergs. "You can't be partially guilty any more than you can be partially pregnant."
But to justify the death penalty, which was invoked to press the Rosenbergs to confess and implicate others, the government left the impression that the couple had handed America's mightiest weapon to the Soviets and precipitated the Korean War.
Records of the grand jury that voted the indictment remain sealed. But we now know the Soviet cables decoded before the trial provided no hard evidence of Ethel's complicity. And Mr. Greenglass has recently admitted that he lied about the most incriminating evidence against his sister. The government's strategy backfired. Ethel wouldn't budge. The Rosenbergs refused to confess and were convicted.
"She called our bluff," William P. Rogers, the deputy attorney general at the time, said shortly before he died in 2001.
"They had the key to the death chamber in their hands," Mr. Kilsheimer says. "They never used it."
Whatever military and technical secrets Julius delivered to the Russians — and it now seems all but certain that, as a committed Communist, he did provide information — the Rosenbergs proved more valuable as martyrs than as spies.
"The Soviets did win the propaganda war," said Robert J. Lamphere, an agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
The war isn't over. David Greenglass is 81; Ruth Greenglass is 79. They live under a pseudonym because their surname has become synonymous with betrayal of kin and country. "Perhaps," Mr. Meeropol says, "this is David and Ruth's final punishment."
On Thursday, Mr. Meeropol, who is 56, and his brother Michael, who is 60, (they took their adoptive parents' name) will attend a program at City Center in Manhattan to "commemorate the Rosenbergs' resistance" and benefit the Rosenberg Fund for Children, which Robert runs.
Michael Meeropol is chairman of the economics department at Western New England College. Would any evidence ever convince him that his father was a spy? "If Soviet documents were verified as historically accurate, I'd certainly believe that," he replied.
Then what? How would he explain his father's behavior? "I would have to do some thinking about my parents being involved in dangerous things, but I can't judge people from the 1940's," he said. "He's not in the Army. He has bad eyesight. He can't make the contribution that others were making. I could argue that this was a way of doing it."
To this day, plenty of people would argue that he's wrong.
Sam Roberts, the deputy editor of the Week in Review, is the author of "The Brother: The Untold Story of the Rosenberg Case."
The toe thing IS utterly repugnent ! BTW, so is the decor of his house in Conn. ! YUCK
Of course Bill didn't have to pay for Monica and Dick did....wait, I take that back.
Bill is paying for it by being known as President Sleaze.
September 8, 2002 By WILLIAM J. BROAD Adding a startling chapter to the long historical debate over the secret laboratory that developed the atom bomb in World War II, a new book concludes that its leader, Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer, belonged to the American Communist Party in the late 1930's and early 40's. Contrary to his repeated denials, Oppenheimer belonged to a cell of the party that discouraged members from disclosing their membership, says the book, "Brotherhood of the Bomb: The Tangled Lives and Loyalties of Robert Oppenheimer, Ernest Lawrence, and Edward Teller," by Gregg Herken, a senior historian at the Smithsonian Institution. It is being published today by Henry Holt. The book rests its case on a cache of newly discovered letters, Oppenheimer's reaction to work on an accusatory memoir and the discovery of Communist literature the author links to Oppenheimer. Most of the letters are from Haakon Chevalier, a colleague of Oppenheimer at the University of California at Berkeley. While Dr. Herken says he doubts that Oppenheimer ever spied for the Soviet Union, as some scholars have asserted, it seems likely that he would have been barred from the leadership post if his Communist past had been known. Oppenheimer, who died in 1967 at 62, acknowledged that he had joined many Communist front organizations in the 1930's and that his wife, his former fiancée, his brother and his sister-in-law were all party members. But he denied ever joining the party itself. The issue arose most famously in 1954 at federal hearings over whether his security clearance should be revoked. Though no evidence of his membership was presented, he lost his clearance and influence in the nation's atomic affairs. The new book asserts that Oppenheimer was a member not only of the party but of a secret cell at the University of California that helped set policy and write party literature. Dr. Herken said in an interview last week that he had obtained more confirming evidence since completing the book. About the accusations that Oppenheimer spied for the Soviets, Dr. Herken said: "I don't think he was a spy. The significance of his being a Communist was that it gave him something he had to hide, and may be one explanation of why he was so quiet after 1954" - when the security clearance was revoked. Dr. Priscilla McMillan, an atom historian at Harvard who is familiar with the new book, said Oppenheimer might have seen the unit as a legal and psychological shield that let him claim with some legitimacy that he was no card-carrying member. "The party in those days," Dr. McMillan said, "wanted so much to have some kind of connection to a person of his prominence that they would let you write your own ticket." Dr. Herken details the evidence of Oppenheimer's membership in the book and in documents on his Web site (www.brotherhoodofthebomb .com). The main accuser is Chevalier, who gained notoriety as an intermediary in the Soviet atom espionage rings of the 1940's. Chevalier taught French literature at the University of California at Berkeley, where Oppenheimer taught physics before the government made him director of the envisioned atomic laboratory, which was built in the mountains of New Mexico in 1943 and named Los Alamos. The book says the two men met in 1937 and became close friends, founding a campus branch of a teacher's union and sponsoring benefits for leftist causes. They also joined a secret unit of the American Communist Party made up primarily of Berkeley professors, Chevalier said in letters from the 1960's that Dr. Herken has uncovered. Chevalier wrote from France, where he went in 1950 after being accused of anti-American activities. In one letter, dated July 1964, Chevalier informs Oppenheimer that he is planning to write a memoir referring to the Communist Party cell. He praised the unit's publications as still making "impressive reading" and to credit Oppenheimer with their authorship. He concluded by promising to "do my best" to respect Oppenheimer's wishes if he objected to the goal. "Indeed I do," the physicist replied in a curt letter from Princeton, where he was director of the Institute for Advanced Study. "What you say of me is not true. I have never been a member of the Communist Party, and thus have never been a member of a Communist Party unit." Weeks later, Chevalier wrote to another member of the cell that he "had originally planned to reveal" that Oppenheimer was a Communist, but added, "I decided that I shouldn't, even though the fact is of considerable historical importance." Apparently unaware of Chevalier's decision, Oppenheimer in March 1965 discussed with his lawyer the possibility of enjoining publication of the memoir, according to a record of the discussion Dr. Herken found in Oppenheimer's papers. Chevalier's memoir, "Oppenheimer: The Story of a Friendship," published in 1965, referred to the unit briefly and elliptically as a political "discussion group" but said nothing about its Communist Party ties. Oppenheimer died two years later. Chevalier died in Paris in 1985 at the age of 83, having never written publicly about the secret unit. But Dr. Herken, who visited his daughter in France, found that Chevalier had written an unpublished memoir in which he detailed the story. Dr. Herken tracked down two of the "Reports to Our Colleagues" that Chevalier said the secret unit had published. They were dated Feb. 20 and April 6, 1940, and signed "College Faculties Committee, Communist Party of California," giving no listing of the individual authors. "We know that it would be an evil thing," the first said, "for this country to go to war, or to join a war, against Russia." The second bore a quotation on its cover page from W. H. Auden, one of Oppenheimer's favorite poets: "Hunger allows no choice/ To the citizen or the police:/ We must love one another or die. . . . " Since completing the book, Dr. Herken has continued to track down corroborating evidence. He said a widow of one of the unit's members confirmed in an unpublished memoir that Oppenheimer belonged to the secret group. Dr. Herken said he had also found an elderly person who had helped organize the secret units of the Communist Party in California. Dr. Herken concluded from his research that Oppenheimer was a loyal American. But it is clear, he added, that the physicist never would have won the atom job if his Communist Party membership had been disclosed publicly. "That," Dr. Herken said, "would have been a showstopper." Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company
I knew, as a small child, Leo Szilard ( I played with his nephews ) and my grandmother was friends with the boy's mother and Leo. I've read his bio " GENIUS IN THE SHADOWS " and there isn't a hint, not a whiff, in that book, that corroborates the article you found.
The Chairman. Mr. Crouch, there is something we have often wondered about, and maybe you can enlighten us. In the trial of this Scientist X, as I recall, you had considerable information and evidence on him. Why weren't you called by the Justice Department in that case, if you know?Mr. Crouch. I was called as an expert witness in rebuttal, but was not permitted to describe my knowledge of him as a member of the party, or to describe the closed meetings of the Communist party I had attended. And my wife [Sylvia Crouch], who was under subpoena in the trial, was not called at all, and I was advised informally to the effect that it was impossible for us to give our testimony without bringing in the name of an internationally famous scientist who was also a member of the Communist party, who had been present at the meetings with Scientist X.
The Chairman. Who in the Justice Department told you you could not be used to testify about your knowledge of Scientist X, his Communist activities?
Mr. Crouch. Mr. Cunningham, of the Justice Department, and Mr. Hitz, assistant United States attorney, advised me that I would not be questioned because our testimony would bring in his name.
The Chairman. Bring in the name of Robert Oppenheimer?
Mr. Crouch. Yes, sir. Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer.
The Chairman. Both you and your wife, I understand, then, were available; the Justice Department knew you had attended Communist party meetings with Scientist X, and one of the issues was whether or not he was a Communist?
Mr. Crouch. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And the jury found him not to be a Communist, ultimately?
Mr. Crouch. They found him not guilty due to lack of sufficient identifying witnesses who had been in closed meetings with him, that is, witnesses who could testify to that effect.
The Chairman. Just for the record, was he being tried for perjury?
Mr. Crouch. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And one of the counts was that he committed perjury when he said he was not a Communist?
Mr. Crouch. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And because of lack of evidence, he was acquitted?
Mr. Crouch. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And both you and your wife, when members of the Communist party, had attended these closed Communist party meetings with him, and you were informed by two Justice Department lawyers that you would not be used because if you were used and you were examined as to who else was there, you would have had to identify Robert J. Oppenheimer; is that it?
Mr. Crouch. To that effect, yes, sir.
The Chairman. Did they say who had given them those instructions?
Mr. Crouch. No, sir, they did not, they did not indicate it in any way.
The Chairman. When was this trial held?
Mr. Crouch. Last year.
The Chairman. What was the date of that trial, Roy?
Mr. Cohn. I don't know the exact date.
The Chairman. And Scientist X, who has been identified, as Scientist X, what is his name again?
Mr. Crouch. Dr. Joseph Weinberg.
The Chairman. Is there any doubt in your mind that Oppenheimer was a member of the Communist party?
Mr. Crouch. No, sir, none whatever. I met him in a closed meeting of the Communist party in a house which was subsequently found to have been his residence at the time, although I did not know it then, and following that I met him at quite a number of Communist party affairs in Alameda County.
The Chairman. I noticed with some interest Oppenheimer's articles in regard to the H-bomb, for example; he vigorously opposed our proceeding with any experimentation in the development of the H-bomb. When he lost out in that, he now has taken the position that we should not have an air force capable of delivering that bomb. Maybe I am simplifying it a bit, but in fact that is his argument. His argument has been that we should build a screen of defense around this nation. From your knowledge of the working of the Communist party, do you know whether or not that was the policy of the Communist party at that time?
Mr. Crouch. His position, in substance, his efforts have corresponded with the efforts of the Communist press throughout this period. The Communist press has sought to prevent the development of the H-bomb. They have sought to obtain a U.S. pledge not to use the atomic bomb, first in time of war, and their policy has coincided with the public statements of Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer and the authoritative press accounts of J. Robert Oppenheimer's position as appeared recently in Fortune magazine, Life, and others . . .
Bombshell : The Secret Story of America's Unknown Atomic Spy Conspiracy by Joseph Albright, Marcia Kunstel http://bombshell-1.com/forum_archive/0000003f.htm
In 1991 Vladimir Chikov first told the story of an American atomic physicist recruited by Soviet agent Morris Cohen before Cohen went in the US Army in July 1942. He gave the physicist the fictitious name "Arthur Fielding". After describing the initial contacts between Cohen and Fielding, Chikov said that Fielding was assigned the NKVD code name Perseus. Most writers on this subject agree that Perseus was not really Fielding's, or any other Soviet spy's, real code name. Most writers further agree that Chikov's Perseus legend is actually a composite of two or more soviet atomic spies, one of whom undoubtedly was Theodore Hall, code-named Mlad.
However, controversy and questions about the Perseus story continue: Informed people understand that Hall could not have been Fielding; the Venona codenames Fogel and Kvant remain unidentified; the source of Kurchatov's knowledge in March 1943 of Fermi's "uranium pile" is not known; etc. The authors of Bombshell vis-à-vis their chapter on the Perseus Myth are in the camp that discounts the Fielding part of the Perseus mosaic. But there are other interested people who are not yet ready to dismiss the existence of Fielding. Bombshell does not completely agree with other credible writings on early Soviet atomic espionage, and there is a physicist who's career, actions and words are very consistent with Chikov's Fielding legend. The physicist is J. Robert Oppenheimer.
Some readers may not know that Robert Oppenheimer was once accused of being a Soviet spy. In 1953 William L. Borden, a former Executive Director of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, wrote a detailed and incriminating letter to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover alleging that "more probably than not J. Robert Oppenheimer is an agent of the Soviet Union". This letter caused the 1954 AEC hearing that removed Oppenheimer's security clearance. Our theory of Fielding could be viewed as a fresh examination of that controversy in light of new information. The very idea that the Director of Los Alamos was in some way a Soviet spy will elicit a knee jerk reaction of derision and disbelief in some readers. That will be unfortunate because it will serve to fulfill Oppenheimer's traditional drinking toast to his communist friends, "To the confusion of our enemies!" (The Story of a Friendship, Haakon Chevalier, page 22). More objective readers will bear in mind that in the spring of 1942 Oppenheimer wasn't 'Oppenheimer'. He had only recently become a "player" in the US atomic effort, someone whom the Soviets would have regarded as commensurate with their new, contemporaneous source in England, Klaus Fuchs.
This post does not constitute a proof against Oppenheimer. We understand that, and want readers to understand that. It should be viewed as an unfinished theory that tries to accommodate what Chikov and others have written as well as other unexplained facts or phenomena. In the scientific world if a theory fits the phenomena it is used and studied further. When it ceases to explain phenomena it is discarded. Our theory of Fielding is posted on that basis. Perhaps via Bombshell the theory will elicit what others presently know or what they can contribute through additional research.
According to what I have read, Teller was an obsessive anti-Communist and also saw Oppenheimer as an opponent of his H-bomb. Evidently he told the FBI that Oppenheimer had Communist sympathies. I had forgotten that, but it's on page 349 of " THE GENIUS IN THE SHADOWS ", which I pulled off the shelf to see if I could find anything more about this. Obviosuly, my memory failed ( it been more than a decade since I read the book )earlier.
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.