October 28, 2010
the rosenberg case lives
AS A COLLEGE STUDENT in the mid-1960s, I was assigned an array of books that for the most part were unremarkable and quickly forgotten. Of the few that really captured my interest was one that explored the trial and execution of a young, Jewish couple from New York convicted of conspiring to steal the secrets of the atom bomb. Invitation to an Inquest struck me as a powerful piece of investigative journalism and I told many friends the book was a must read. The authors, Walter and Miriam Schneir, persuasively argued that Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were an innocent, progressive couple caught up in an anti-Communist, FBI-inspired witch hunt and that a “pathological liar” and “weirdly twisted creature” named Harry Gold was the government appointed finger man who fabricated a highly unlikely story that put them in the electric chair. Young, impressionable, and unschooled in the nuances of the case, my admiration for the book would remain intact for many years. Of course, I was aware that the guilt or innocence of the Rosenbergs was a controversial and much-debated issue with numerous and knowledgeable advocates on both sides. As time went on, I read other accounts of the case and my confidence in the Schneir thesis began to wane. For example, The Rosenberg File, Ron Radosh and Joyce Milton’s 1983 take on the case, was equally compelling and easily matched the Schneirs’ for solid historical detective work.more from Allen M. Hornblum at The Fortnightly Review here.
Posted by Morgan Meis at 08:57 AM | Permalink






















Comments
Painfully controversial cases like this one are always a good reminder that justice needs to be carried out as impassionately as possible.
Otherwise we end us as a society with nagging worries that we might have made a mistake....
Posted by: Shelley | Oct 28, 2010 12:05:22 PM
The old saying "hard cases make bad law" comes to mind.
Sometimes juries have a very difficult task, as in the Rosenberg case.
But sometimes "only time will tell".
Posted by: Dredd | Oct 28, 2010 3:24:48 PM
I appears that Julius Rosenberg, at least, may well have been guilty of some crime. This does not change the fact that the Rosenbergs did not get a fair trial by any reasonable measure. There were myriad abuses of the most basic standards of justice by both the prosecutors and the judge.
Posted by: Frank | Oct 28, 2010 6:57:25 PM
In my lifetime, the Rosenbergs have gone from being martyrs to being about as guilty as their detractors maintained, if grotesquely over-punished. Ethel Rosenberg was put to death with ghoulish ineptitude -- it took a long time to electrocute her. Nobody my parents' age was unaffected by that. I would like to remind readers now in their 20s and 30s, who cannot remember the story, that the fate of the Rosenbergs is ultra-pertinent to our own times. Once more, we are living in an atmosphere of hysteria and suspicion. The highest cost of that is the tarring and convicting of innocent people. While the Rosenbergs have for more than 20 years been presumed even by people who once supported them as guilty of low level espionage at least, it was the zealous and unholy rush to execute them that made criminals of almost every American.
There will always be traitors -- for money or for belief in some cause they hold dearer than national security. The Rosenbergs are there to remind us it's better for us patriots if we commit to giving convicted spies the treatment received by Jonathan Pollard, instead.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Oct 28, 2010 9:34:28 PM
In today's toxic political atmosphere, even those pronounced innocent may not be let go.
Posted by: Ruchira | Oct 28, 2010 10:08:42 PM
Post a comment