Jump to content

Talk:Julius and Ethel Rosenberg/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

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 Rosenberg 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)

I dispute the removal of the leading statement indicating that the "The Rosenberg's were indeed guilty of espionage". There is a broad consensus among legal historians that they were guilty, and that should be stated in this article. In fact, all of the appeals made against their conviction were on the basis of questions of law and procedure, as to the applicability of the existing statutes toward what they had done, and when they did it. Not whether they did it or not! Ultimately ( and in some cases even posthumously) all of these questions were resolved against them with sound legal reasoning by the Supreme Court on judicial review. In response to TDC's statement that Ethel was convicted of conspiracy rather than espionage, this statement, while factually true, leaves out the important fact that the crime of conspiracy to commit a crime executed by others carries the same penalty as the crime itself. These crimes had to do with the knowing transfer of legally protected information. I believe that it was proved that she did participate in that. What I find amazing is that no-one ever mentions that Ethel was executed in an electric chair designed for a man much larger than herself, and hence was subjected to three killing power electric shocks, whereas her husband died after only one because the electrodes fit him properly. If that is not cruel and unusual punishment, if that is not a violation of her civil rights, then I'm sure I don't know what is. It gave me chills to read about this. They say smoke rose above her head as she was dying. Imagine the torture of it. The Vanona transcripts (which, by the way, were documented as being in the hands of the US Government at the time of these trials, though they were classified and only released publicly when their classification changed), specifically cite Ethel Rosenberg as Julius' wife, and state that she knows about, and approves of her husband's work, but "does not actively participate because of delicate health". This would indicate that she was aware of, and arguably aiding and abetting his activities, in a more passive function (hence the now infamous "note typing" testimony of her brother). She would therefore have also failed her assertive duty to report the activities of her husband and other Communist friends and acquaintances, a 'ring of spies" in fact, of which she was very much aware, and had an assertive duty as an American citizen to report such to the authorities. It is a settled principle of American law that knowledge of such a crime, and failure to report it is a kind of crime in and of itself; a crime of omission. Such reportage would have been necessary for her to avoid charges of treason. The execution of the Rosenbergs, while a tragedy in human terms, is not an example of any outrageous miscarriage of American justice against people who were legally "innocent". Their statements of their own innocence were arguably made on "moral" grounds based on their premise that they were following the honestly held convictions of their own consciences. But the proposition that the Rosenbergs were just a nice Jewish couple who were arbitrarily framed for trumped up charges is preposterous, and the evidence refutes it soundly. They are no Saccho and Vanzetti and the suggestion that they are similar martyrs does a disservice to the memory of those who have been innocently convicted because of fear and prejudice in our country. Clearly he was a spy and she was a co-conspirator with her husband and brother, and other individuals with whom they interacted. While it is clear that they were not viewed impartially, or treated to the fullest extent of merciful equity by the authorities at the time, there is little doubt that they were both guilty of treason and conspiracy to commit treason, as was David Greenglass, her brother who was also convicted and went to prison. On a final note, the Rosenbergs and their co-conspirators were giving any Top Secret information they could find to the Soviets through their connections. They were convicted under the 1917 statute, so the fact that it was not "Atomic" information is moot as to their convictions, and the harsh sentencing they received was also contemplated within both statutes, neither of which act to refute each other. So we should say that "Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were convicted in 1951, espionage and conspiracy to commit espionage, after a sensationally publicized trial that received a passionate world wide response. There is broad consensus among legal historians that they were indeed guilty of espionage, and conspiracy to commit espionage, respectively".

I believe this is how it should read and it should be changed. I would like to hear disputes, if any, and will be happy to give 72 hours before I make any edition.

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)

Fact remains, Ethel and Julius gave "aid and comfort to enemies of the United States" and are classic examples of textbook, and Constitutional, "Treason". Venona Project effectively refudiates defense arguments and confirms their guilt. Sic Semper Peroditor!! 71.241.44.94 (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Bill Liddell, Gloucester VA.

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.

I don't agree --- though Fuchs gives a description of his courier in fact he did not acknowledge that Harry Gold was his courier until AFTER Gold had confessed. Also, if Venona is true [my brother and I are uncertain about this -- see his An Executionin the Family and my speech at Vassar College in 1995] the FBI knew about Fuchs and Gold before Fuchs' confession. [[OOPS, I see someone beat me to it ...]

M. Meeropol —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.87.246.177 (talk • contribs) 22 June 2006.

  • 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 description of Sobell being "deported" from Mexico is a serious error. See the trial transcript and his book ON DOING TIME. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.87.246.177 (talk • contribs) 22 June 2006.(Apparently M. Meeropol)
  • 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)

ACTUALLY: If Greenglass is to be believed, the lens mold drawings and the experimental mock-ups (these were exhibits that were NOT impounded) were passed to Harry Gold and directly to the Soviets that way -- not through Julius rosenberg. THe only specific acts of espionage related at the trial were the passing of Exhibit 8 (the cross-section of the implosion-type A-bomb that was impounded at the defense's request -- grand-stand play that backfired -- ), the stealing of the Proximity Fuse, the sky platform, the rocket plane, and a couple of other odd assertions by David Greenglass ... the Proximity Fuse story is suspect because of the results of the FBI's own investigation -- see We Are Your Sons, SECOND EDITION (1986), last chapter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.87.246.177 (talk • contribs) 22 June 2006.(Apparently M. Meeropol)

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)

There were four major proven perjuries known at least as early as the 1970s (some from the 1950s) even before Greenglass confessed on 60 minutes to perjury about Ethel Rosenberg's typing. 1) The "I come from Julius" code between Gold and Greenglass when they allegedly met in 1945 -- both testified to something different at the Grand Jury in August of 1950 and then met in December of to fix up the testimony -- that's when "I come from Julius" was either INVENTED or REMEMBERED (take your pick!). 2) Both David and Ruth Greenglass testified that a drop-leaf console table was hollowed out for microfilming and was a gift from the Russians. Juliue and Ethel Rosenberg testified they bought the table for $21 at Macy's and it wasn't hollowed out. The table was found in 1953 -- the photgraphs were showed to a Macy's employee who confirmed it was sold for close to $21 in that year --- it was not hollowed out. The Rosenbergs told the truth, the Greenglasses lied. 3) Passport pictures allegedly taken by David and Ruth Greenglass as part of plans to flee were introduced as exhibits at the trial. They were not passport photos but ordinary family snapshots. 4) The alleged testimony about Ethel's typing. David Greenglass asserted that she wasn't involved at all when he testified before the Grand Jury in August of 1950 but changed his testimony after Ruth CREATED (or REMEMBERED -- take your pick) Ethel's typing in FEBRUARY of 1951. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.87.246.177 (talk • contribs) 22 June 2006.(Apparently M. Meeropol)

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 [Venona](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 [Venona](Secret) information. These prosecutions were instituted without using [Venona](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?

INSERT BY M. Meeropol: The VENONA decryptions if taken literally are proof of Ethel Rosenberg's innocence -- she's not given a code name is described as someone who "does not work" -- by contrast Ruth Greenglass is immediately given a code name when she allegedly agrees to ask her husband to join the espionage activities of Julius Rosenberg...

I do not believe there is ANY MENTION in the Venona decryptions of Miriam Moskowitz and Abraham Brothman but someone would have to look more closely. There is DEFINITELY no mention of Morton Sobell -- the person that some people thought was Sobell (code named RELE) had a wooden leg!! Do not take the "introduction" by some CIA analyst as a correct statement of what is in the VENONA decryptions themselves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.87.246.177 (talk • contribs) 22 June 2006.(Apparently M. Meeropol)

  • 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 .[1]
    • 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.
      • 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.
See my response at Talk:Significance_of_Venona#Footnote_Warfare
(here's a classified secret, the answer is 34 + 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)

The last paragraph in the section "KGB Spy", discussing Morton Sobell's return from Mexico, makes no juristic sense. The issue seems to be whether he was "deported", "extradited", "waived extradition" or was extrajudicially "rendered" to the US at the Mexican border. If extradited, the question would be whether according to the treaty (unlikely to happen in a single day; the judicial and diplomatic procedures would normally take longer than that especially in the days before the invention of the fax machine). The result might be the same (see, for example, the Wikipedia article on United States v. Alvarez-Machain) but anyone with even a partial understanding of cross-border prosecution is left puzzled. Also, at the end of "Further References" there appears the following incongruous entry: "The offspring of these two were the Klien family who currently live in greatneck, ny. One grand child of this person is Harry Klien." Andygx (talk) 08:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Ethel Rosenberg's involvement

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

[Remark removed here by its author]

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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.41.204.3 (talk • contribs) 25 Aug 2005.

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)
[Remark removed here by its author]
For a review of that from the opposite camp, see this review from The Nation. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:44, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
[Remark removed here by its author]
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)
[Remark removed here by its author]
Ah, nothing shows a cooperative attitude like sticking your later response before my earlier one... -- Jmabel | Talk 20:30, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

UTC)

[Remark removed here by its author]
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)

See WP:COPY if you think the removed text is of value. Specifically, Section 1, Contributors' rights and obligations: "In the first case, you retain copyright to your materials. You can later republish and relicense them in any way you like. However, you can never retract the GFDL license for the copies of materials that you place here; these copies will remain under GFDL forever."
Pitchka's position that he may "revoke permission" whenever he sees fit is moot: the proverbial cat is already out of the bag. Pitchka cannot remove existing testimony simply because he wishes it was never said. I would personally replace the text if I thought it had any redeeming value. Orethrius 06:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

A couple of important points that I think are not brought out in this article: 1) I find it very odd that there is no cross-reference to Ted Hall, a Los Alamos scientist revealed in the book "Bombshell" to have been an atomic spy. The cases are clearly related. 2) The admission by Morton Sobell, and its acknowledgement by the Meeropols, that both he and Julius Rosenberg were Soviet spies largely wraps up the central issue in this debate. The dispositive nature of the Sobell admission needs to be recognized. 72.71.200.6 (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2008 (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"; [2] 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)

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)
In any event, he was the vice counsel, was he not? His public identity should be identified before his espionage identity, in a case like this. I think the idea that we should introduce Soviet intelligence terms into English is questionable in any sense, but especially when applied to Wikipedia articles (which have to be sensible to people and are not a forum for changing the language). --Fastfission 03:29, 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)

What does this have to do with an article on the Rosenbergs?

During World War II, the USSR and the USA became allies in war, but the USA was highly suspicious of Joseph Stalin's intentions. As such, the Americans did not share information or seek assistance from the Soviet Union for the Manhattan Project. The Soviets were aware of the project as a result of espionage penetration of the US government, however, and had made a number of attempts to infiltrate its operations at the University of California, Berkeley. A number of project members — some high-profile, others lower in rank — did voluntarily give secret information to Russian agents, many because they were sympathetic to communism (or the Soviet Union's role in the War) and did not feel that the USA should have a monopoly on atomic weapons.
After the war, the US resisted efforts to share nuclear secrets, but the Soviet Union was able to produce its own atomic weapons by 1949. Their first nuclear test, "Joe 1", shocked the West in the speed it was produced. It was discovered in January 1950 that Klaus Fuchs, a German refugee theoretical physicist working for the British mission in the Manhattan Project, had given key documents to the Russians throughout the war. Through Fuchs' confession, US and UK intelligence agents were able to find his "courier", Harry Gold, who was arrested on May 23, 1950. A former machinist at the top-secret Los Alamos laboratory, Sgt. David Greenglass, confessed to having passed secret information on to the USSR through Gold as well. He testified that his sister, Ethel Rosenberg, and her husband, Julius, had also passed secrets. Another accused conspirator, Morton Sobell, fled to Mexico City, but was later deported to the United States for trial.

What do two long winded paragraphs have to do with the topic? I can see this is an attempt to downplay the significance and legitimize the Rosenberg's actions, but aside from that what is the purpose? I will trim or remove, as defenses are given in great detail in the article all ready. DTC 22:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, both are for contextualization, clearly, which is why they are in a section on "Background". The first could be edited down considerably but the second is a description of how the case came to court in the first place. I'm not sure why you find them irrelevant, considering they describe the wartime bomb project situation, the capturing of Fuchs and its leading of intelligence to Gold and then Greenglass, who was the principle witness against the Rosenbergs. Sounds pretty relevant to me, and I don't think contextualization is "downplaying the significance," nor does explanation "legitimize" any actions. --Fastfission 23:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd agree with FastFission; the information about Fuchs is indispensible (sp?). The first para looks like useful background to me rather than a defense, but I suppose a bit of editing couldn't do it any harm. --Dvyost 23:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I do agree that the information on Greenglass and Fuchs is relevant to the article, but it is not being presented as such, and after a second look I was too hasty. I think the information needs to be written in a more coherent manner. But another question remains, what impact did VENONA material have in the initial Rosenberg's investigation. The FBI did have possesion of them, and Hoover even used the material to argue against Ethel's execution. DTC 00:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

On the role of VENONA in arresting the Rosenbergs: It is a good question; I'm not sure of the answer myself. According to the little CIA book on the Venona says:

September 1949. The FBI determined that covernames REST and CHARLES, both denoting a scientist in the wartime Manhattan Project, referred to physicist Klaus Fuchs, author of a paper quoted in one message. British authorities interrogated Fuchs in late 1949. His information in turn led the FBI to courier Harry Gold, arrested in Philadelphia on 22 May.
February 1950. Lamphere suspected that a Soviet agent covernamed CALIBRE had to be an enlisted man posted at the Manhattan Project facility at Los Alamos during the war. Subsequent AFSA analysis, and additional information from Harry Gold, led to David Greenglass, who confessed to the FBI on 15 June 1950 and also implicated his brother-in-law, Julius Rosenberg. ...
Late June 1950. The FBI discovered that information in the messages about an agent who collected technological and scientific secrets, codenamed LIBERAL and ANTENNA, matched the known facts about New York engineer Julius Rosenberg. Two messages also implicated his wife, Ethel. Rosenberg had been questioned on the basis of David Greenglass' information on 16 June and tailed ever since, but he was not arrested until a month later.

Which seems to imply that the general connection of Venona to the Rosenberg case is: Venona leads to Fuchs whose confession leads to Gold whose confession leads to Greenglass whose confession leads to Rosenberg whose details are matched up to details in Venona and then arrested. Aside from the Fuchs bit (which is of course significant) the role of Venona in identifying the Rosenbergs was more of a confirmation or after-the-fact approach, matching up known details about the suspects to information in the transcripts. --Fastfission 01:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Fuchs did not "lead to" Gold. As made in Norman Moss's Klaus Fuchs, Fuchs "identified" Gold from film footage. I suspect that subsequent to Fuchs's confession the Americans shook the Manhattan tree to see who else would fall out and picked up on Greenglass. Not sure how they struck Gold but he seemed a very malleable witness. A lot of the evidence is actually after-the-fact.--Jack Upland 01:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm aware it is more complicated than Fuchs simply pointing out Gold. "Lead to" was a deliberate simplification. --Fastfission 17:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

"the US resisted efforts to share nuclear secrets" - whose efforts? Why not say "the US did not/would not share its nuclear secrets?" The "resisted" sounds POV to me. But even did not/would not is a tricky distinction. Jbhood 17:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, there were many calls (even within the Manhattan Project) for more openness about nuclear weapons information with the Soviet Union in order to affirm better faith with Russia and to prevent an arms race. It could probably be worded better, both to identify who "the US" is in this situation, and to make it clear what the "efforts" were. --Fastfission 00:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Theodore Hall

TDC recently cut the following from the article with an edit summary that indicates that he considers it either "factually incorrect" or "redundant". Since the only other mention of Hall is an unlinked mention of his name, it's not redundant. It's uncited, so I'm not restoring, but I believe it should be cited and restored. TDC, are you claiming this is actually false? (It matches what I've heard).

Before he died, Theodore Hall, who moved to the UK from the US partly because of an FBI investigation of him in the 1950s, claimed that it was he, a scientist working at Los Alamos, who gave atomic information to the USSR, not anyone else such as Ethel Rosenberg, a housewife living in a poor (the Lower East Side) New York neighborhood.

Jmabel | Talk 02:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Two things, this statment is ridiculous on its face because Hall was not the only one at Los Alamos who was spying (the second part is just naked POV). There was Fuchs, Gold, and Greenglass who were all spying. Secondly, I have no problem with phrasing things in a way to reflect the low level of participation Ethel had, but I object to the constant tone in the article that Ethel had nothing to do with her husbands activities. DTC 17:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Feklisov and Ethel Rosenberg

While we are at it, TDC also cut "Feklisov also asserted that Ethel Rosenberg was not involved in any spying." I'm pretty certain that is the case; none of our remarks about Feklisov seem to be cited. TDC, are you claiming this is untrue, asking for citation, or what? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Feklisov cannot credit Ethel for recrutiing David Greenglass, and then say she had no invovlement in it. DTC 17:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Feklisov - and anyone else - can say anything he/she chooses.--Jack Upland 09:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but then there is an obvious inconsistency. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Recruitment of Julius Rosenberg

Just to make it a Trifecta: TDC added the following. It seems quite detailed, but no citations were provided. TDC, could you please give a proper citation of your source for this, per Wikipedia:Citing sources?

Julius Rosenberg was originally recruited by the KGB on Labor Day 1942 by former KGB spymaster Semyon Semenov. Julius had been introduced to Semyonov by Bernard Schuster, a high ranking member of the CPUSA as well as Earl Browder's personal KGB liaison. After Semyonov was recalled to Moscow in 1944, his duties were taken over by his apprentice, Alexander Feklisov. According to Feklisov, Julius was his most dedicated and valuable asset, providing thousands of classified reports from Emerson Radio including a complete proximity fuze, the same design that was used to do shoot down Francis Gary Powers's U-2 in 1960. Under Feklisov administration, Julius Rosenberg recruited sympathetic individuals to the KGB’s service. Joel Barr, Al Sarant, William Perl and Morton Sobell were all recruited by Julius.
Under Julius Rosenberg’s direction Perl supplied Feklisov with thousands of documents from the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics including a complete set of design and production drawings for the Lockheed's P-80 Shooting Star. Feklisov learned through Julius that his brother-in-law David Greenglass was working on the top secret Manhattan Project at Los Alamos, and used Julius to recruit him.

Jmabel | Talk 02:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

-The Man Behind the Rosenbergs, Alexander Feklisov and Sergei Kostin; DTC 17:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Page numbers? - Jmabel | Talk 08:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
pg's 140-147 covers most of it. DTC 18:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

And speaking of citation, what exactly is the third reference (http://history.acusd.edu/gen/text/coldwar/venona2.html) supposed to establish? I don't see anything on there about Ethel. --Fastfission 05:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, my recent edit just reformatted that reference, I didn't even check it. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Article name

Google suggests that the form "Julius and Ethel Rosenberg" is about twice as common on the web, and it's certainly what I've seen most often in print and other media. Some pairs of individuals are just known better in one combination than another.--Pharos 01:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Someone should move it, if there's no objection. --Calamari 01:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it was probably meant to be alphabetical, but I agree we should probably do it according to form. Also given that at best Ethel was the accomplice, it makes more sense in terms of importance, I suppose. --Fastfission 02:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, since it's been about a week, I've changed it, and fixed all the redirects.--Pharos 06:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Children vs feds

I heard the US govt has been trying to persuade the Rs' children to admit their parents were spies but they resist and demand that Ethel be cleared posthumously and then they MAY admit to Julius being an important spy. This should be mentioned. 195.70.32.136 09:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Nothing on the "govt trying to persuade" front, but within the last year or two, I've heard both Rosenberg son Robert Meeropol and Rosenberg granddaughter Ivy Meeropol (Michael's son) talk about their current views. They are not in complete agreement with each other. I think Robert's views could be fairly summarized by saying he is convinced that Ethel was innocent; that in terms of the specific claim of "giving away atomic secrets" Julius was framed; and that while it is quite possible that Julius was involved in espionage of some sort, the government was so willing to use faked evidence and perjured testimony that the record is too muddy to draw any positive conclusions.
Here's one relevant, citable remark of Ivy's: "While I don't believe my grandmother had anything to do with what Julius was accused of doing (note that even our government's own documentation in the Venona papers states that she did not have a codename and didn't work for the Soviets) I am as certain that she was as political a person as my grandfather was. IF he was involved in anything, I'm sure she knew about it and supported him, but not in the blind, "yes dear" way of a typical fifties housewife. Of course this is mainly conjecture…" [3] I think there is a bit of internal contradiction in that: she didn't have anything to do with it, but if he was involved she new about it and supported him. My guess is that she resolves that by believing that Julius didn't do what he was accused of. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I have heard Ivy speak about her film and she said she keeps changing her mind on the issue of guilt. In the film the sons express general uncertainty. I don't think these views are really that important for an article like this. (Particularly those of Ivy who never met them.) There is a Rosenberg supporters website which gives more info (rosenbergtrial.org - currently being revamped). And I don't believe the govt would be communicating/negotiating over the case. That sounds like a misunderstanding.--Jack Upland 04:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I recently viewed Ivy Meeropol's documentary about her grandparents. At one level, I thought it was a sincere and moving attempt to come to terms with her family's legacy of sacrifice, shame and suffering. At another level, it was deeply evasive - perhaps, because the full truth was too painful for any of her family to admit and confront. There seems little doubt that Julius Rosenberg was a low to middle level agent for the Soviet Union - a repressive regime which has been utterly discredited by the passage of history. What may once have been seen as admirable political idealism on Rosenberg's part now seems shockingly naive - or worse. If he had been able to supply even more valuable information to the Soviet Union, I am sure he would have done so. Ethel Rosenberg may indeed have been a passive and not an active collaborator in his espionage. If that is true, it only confirms that she shared the same implaccable naivety. Finally, the stubborn refusal of Julius Rosenberg to admit and accept responsibility for his actions not only helped to ensure that his wife would accompanuy him to the electric chair, and that his children would grow up as orphans, it also condemned further generations of what Lenin once termed "useful idiots" to years of fruitless work - attempting to prove that he was really innocent. The familial loyalty. with which his offspring have laboured over many years on his behalf, does them some credit. Sadly, it does him none. Adesterre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adesterre (talk • contribs) 01:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Fuchs/Gold again

I have corrected the text saying that Fuchs led to Gold for reasons already discussed twice on this page. I don't understand how so much detailed research can co-exist with simple errors of fact.--Jack Upland 01:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The Rosenbergs' guilt

The view expressed in this article that Julius was "likely" or definitely guilty but not necessarily of atomic espionage is an illogical compromise. The trial - particularly with the testimony of Greenglass - was focussed entirely on atomic espionage. Subsequently, a lot of this evidence has been shown to be wanting, but it makes no sense to put forward the "compromise" view expressed here and elsewhere. How does this theory explain Greenglass? Was it just a coincidence that the FBI picked up someone whose brother-in-law was a spy, but in an unrelated field??? I think it would be better for the article to simply state that there is controversy, rather than put forward a nonsensical theory which tries to accept the contentions of both sides.--Jack Upland 01:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The "compromise" can be found in the first para:

"The accuracy of these charges remains controversial, though decades later, Soviet communications decrypted by the VENONA project became publicly available, which indicate that Julius Rosenberg was actively involved in espionage, although they provided no evidence that he performed the specific acts of espionage for which he was convicted or that Ethel Rosenberg was involved."

And under Controversy:

"there seem to be reasons to believe that while Julius was likely involved in some form of espionage..."

As I indicated above, this "theory" is quite commonly expressed (not just in this article) even though it is completely illogical.--Jack Upland 01:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Jack, could you be clearer about what you find illogical. I really don't get it. All I see here is rhetorical questions and an indication of what passages you object to. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying you are being unclear. Could you express this less rhetorically, so the rest of us can try to understand what you are saying and engage with it? - Jmabel | Talk 03:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

What I think is illogical - for the reasons explained above - is the idea that Julius could have been a spy, just not an 'atom spy'.--Jack Upland 06:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I grasped that, what I haven't grasped is what you find illogical about it. A purported fact cannot be "illogical" unless it in internally contradictory, and clearly someone could pass information to the Soviets without passing them atomic secrets. There is obviously some series of inferences you are objecting to. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Of course, the proposition that Julius was a spy, just not an atomic spy, is not internally inconsistent, but it is inconsistent with most other relevant information. To put forward a 'purported fact' while ignoring the necessary inferences is illogical. The inferred theory seems to be that while investigating Los Alamos, the authorities extorted a false confession from one of the technicians (Greenglass) which falsely implicated his brother-in-law; however by an incredible coincidence his brother-in-law was actually involved in unrelated espionage. This, however, defies belief - which is implicitly acknowledged in that it goes unvoiced. A proposition is presented as believable while its implications which are unbelievable are ignored. Herein lies the illogicality.--Jack Upland 04:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Significantly the people who pretend they would like to respond if only they understood the point leave it unanswered for a year. Logically if you support a particular view, you spell it out and deal with its implications. (Obviously I am not talking about pure logic in the sense of Bertrand Russell or Lewis Carroll.) In other words, the text is a compromise written by a committee of the non-committal...--Jack Upland 04:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"Fellowcountryman"

The article says, A document from November 27, 1944 [1] specifically about Ethel lists her as a "fellowcountryman" and claims that she was aware of Julius' work. What does "fellowcountryman" mean, since Ethel was female? A (Communist) sympathizer? Is this a case of bad translation? Zapiens 14:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it means a sympathizer. In this case I don't think people worry too much about gender agreement. In Russian there is no differentiation between a fellowcountryman and a fellowcountrywoman (both are zemlyak). (In Russian only some words/professions have biological gender differentiations, usually reflecting the historical division of labor. So there is a difference between male and female school teachers, but not one between male and female professors, for example.) --Fastfission 15:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The designation of 'fellowcountryman' is purely speculative.--Jack Upland 11:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

"Fellowcountryman" does NOT mean sympathizer. It means member of the Communist Party. In Ethel's case, the Communist Party of the USA. It is absolutely NOT speculative. Sorry, Jack.

What is the basis of this assertion? A Soviet codebook?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Absolute guilt -- doesn't put to death end the question?

I find this most disturbing:

"The accuracy of these charges remains controversial."

Evidence in a court of law ? Was the finding, controversial? I think a death sentence is quite uncontroversial, in fact decisive.

Clearly the NY Times has a problem reporting. That is your only source, an interview with a biased, politically motivated newspaper ? We don't have privy to the interview itself, just the editorialized view of it. Try the television interview of Alexander Feklisov in 1997 for an unbiased look at his unequivocal statements of his knowledge of the guilt of the Rosenbergs. As their handler, he was uniquely qualified to make a definitive statement, unlike a newspaper writer who had to spin the facts and twist the statements to get the article to come out in favor of the editorial position of the NY Times -- i.e. far left. His condemning knowledge of the spys is confirmed by Khruschev himself whose statement of praise for the two Soviet loyalists rings with clarity and appropriate appreciation for keeping the Soviets abreast of US technology in critical areas.

What is not controversial is that the Soviets benefited from the spies that effectively moved vital US secrets from here to Moscow and threatened the US for decades. Where were you?

Unless there is some incontrovertible evidence that will reverse the facts for these dead people then drop the insistence that there 'remains controversy' because it is settled. Create a website for controversy if you feel so compelled. This site is rife with 'continued controversy' when it doesn't suit liberal views or facts are pushed in the face of disbelief. That is not neutrality, it is bias of the form of never ending, 'let's keep this open for the possibility of a complete denial of reality once eons have passed'.

Clearly you are so biased yourself you have no ability to judge other people's bias. A few points:
  • If there is wide dispute about something, then it is controversial, regardless of whether you believe your opponents are wrong, stupid, or dishonest.
  • The USSR's nuclear program benefited from spies (including Klaus Fuchs) and from independent research. You can't possibly blame it all on the Rosenbergs.
  • What is the relevance of your emphasis on the death penalty? Fuchs was not executed, but no one doubts his guilt.
  • The evidence from the former USSR is unreliable, especially when it is cited selectively.--Jack Upland 02:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You know more about Soviet weapons development than Nikita ?

I somehow doubt that the author has any authority on the topic to make this statement:

Whether this was what Khrushchev said or believed, the evidence is clear that it is incorrect. [2]

This is absurd. What you probably mean to say is that the contributions from the Rosenbergs were less than those of other Soviet spies operating in the US. Such a weak defense in behalf of the Rosenbergs! You question the very thoughts of a Soviet premier, as though you are qualified to speak his mind for him, to depict his beliefs! Then you surmise 'evidence' by citing a NY Times interview.

By what stretch of logic do you expect someone to follow your self aggrandizing claim that you or the NY Times has perception of Soviet weapons development beyond the totalitarian Soviet head of State? You, and I dare say there is no one who can assess the contribution by any one person any where to the development of Soviet weapons. I find no defense in your assertion that the 'value of the information illegally passed diminshes the crime of espionage'. Criminals of this caliber are convicted for being enemies of the state. Not only are you unable to assess the spy network, which one Soviet agent called the most efficient ring in operation, but you are completely unable to assess the contribution of anyone to the benefit of the USSR or to the detriment of the US. In fact, it wouldn't matter if you could.

Your denial of the damning Nikita statement does not diminish it, and it is inappropriate on this article for you to give your opinion about it. Such is the reserve of your own personal webpage were you can editorialize the fact that the Soviet premier gushed praise in behalf of the heroes of the Soviet Union but the NY Times and yourself don't buy it.

Obviously, clarity was not your goal.

Khrushchev's memoirs are both self-serving and reflections of his own probably limited knowledge. Historians never take claims from memoirs as being necessarily true unless they can be corroborated. In the case of Khrushchev's memoirs, every other account of the value of the Rosenberg's data to the Soviet program says that it was not useful at all, especially in comparison with the data provided by other espionage sources. As a result, this is what our article says -- your blind adherence to a single, unsubstantiated line in a memoir from a man who had many such unsubstantiated lines in his memoirs shows you to be the one with the weak methodology. You are incorrect about the knowledge about the relative contributions -- considerable information about the contributions of the Soviet espionage ring are available from consultation of the Soviet archives which became possible in the post-Soviet era.
In any case, your identifying of a single author of a Wikipedia article as the target of your little screed is incorrect -- this article has been worked on by dozens of different people, there is no single person to identify as the "you" in your attack. --Fastfission 20:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)3
I understand K says that Stalin told him the Rosenbergs were very significant. It's therefore hearsay. K's not claiming to have perused relevant intelligence files. I'm not sure that there's been any work done to authenticate the transcription of K's tapes.--Jack Upland 02:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Do we need to expand or delete the Controversy section?

Considering most of the points are covered adequately covered elsewhere in the article we should eliminate this section and migrate relevant material elsewhere, or we should migrate relevant material from elsewhere into the section and expand it. Thoughts? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Difficult question. Ideally I think there should be a 'bare bones' account of the things that are not in dispute, i.e. they were accused, denied it, and were executed. Then go into the constroversy. This is fairer and flows better. However, it is hard to achieve, especially when so many facts are disputed or simply unclear.--Jack Upland 08:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the structure is still messy, repetitive, and biased. Can we have a undisputed narrative and then analysis/controvery or will this just trigger a firefight?--Jack Upland 17:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

M. Meeropol

Normally I don't add a note about adding a pseudo sig, but in the case of User:67.87.246.177, in one place he signed himself as "M. Meeropol", presumably Michael Meeropol. Many of his comments were interspersed into older discussions. I see no particular reason to doubt the self-identification, and have indicated the self-identification in the pseudo sigs I added to his other comments. - Jmabel | Talk 22:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-review and in-line citations

Note: This article has a small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 23:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Orphaning an issue?

My mother was among those who campaigned for the Rosenbergs - or at least Ethel - not to be executed. I was under the impression that the orphaning of the children was an issue for her and many others. Guilty or innocent, this was cruel and unusual punishment for them. Are there any contemporary records of the campaign that support this? --Hugh7 06:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't follow what you are saying. Cruel and unusual punishment for Julius and Ethel, or for the children? - Jmabel | Talk 05:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It must be you don't want to understand, since the children do at no point deserve the description guilty. Anyway, for contemporary matter one would have to look into the newsoutlets etc. I would think in such a well documented case, some collections of article's and list of publication still exist when you ask former researchers. It is also quitte possible the orphaning of the children was part of the trend to set an example for communists. At least that noone even dared adopt them very much suggest a interesse of the authoritys in their circumstances.77.248.56.242 10:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Did the Rosenbergs commit treason?

Some folks I know have claimed that the Rosenbergs committed treason. Is that an accurate statement or not? True, it was not de jure treason (the incidents occurred in 1944, when the USSR was an "ally of convenience"), but did they commit de facto treason? — Rickyrab | Talk 18:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The U.S. government never put them on trial for treason. Since "treason" is a legal term, de facto treason doesn't mean much, or means anything you want to. Since historians are not strongly in agreement as to what they actually did, your question is very hypothetical, and there really isn't much answer to give beyond "some people say so, others strongly disagree, but they were never charged with it, let alone convicted." - Jmabel | Talk 06:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, treason is an emotional and personal term. Kim Philby's My Secret War (introduced by Graham Greene) claims that his espionage represented loyalty to long-held political positions and principles. Is he then not guilty of treason? This just underlines the point that 'treason' is a very moot point.--Jack Upland 04:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Clean-up

Got rid of some vandalism about urban ninja's

also I came across this in the pop culture section "In an episode of Sliders they were the ones who commited the assassination of JFK."

what does that have to do with the Rosenbergs? Drew1369 18:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Very nearly nothing. There are people who can't tell the difference between an encyclopedia and a compendium of entertainment trivia. There has been an increasing tendency to move pop cultural material off into separate articles in category "in popular culture". I think it is a good approach. - Jmabel | Talk 06:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

"" Julius Rosenberg (May 12, 1918 – June 19, 1953) and Ethel Greenglass Rosenberg (September 28, 1915 – June 19, 1953) were American Communists who received international attention when they were wrongfully executed for passing nuclear weapons secrets to the Soviet Union. ""

Why is the word ´wrongfully´found in this sentence?

Because this article is obviously biased.

More info on trial?

The info on the trial is very thin and buried by the post-Cold War 'revelations'. It would be good to mention the Jell-O box and the console table (mentioned above) as they provide the authentic flavour of the trial - and in part explain why so many were sceptical. However, it is hard to insert these details (or any others) into the existing structure...--Jack Upland 10:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

PS See above comment about Controversy section. Restructure permissable???--Jack Upland 17:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I need to read on, but the description of the trial I have read so far omits any reference to the venue - it was a Federal case, was it not? Johnfravolda (talk) 00:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

I've changed the intro to include mention of the nuclear bomb (pretty important!!!), to remove details that are fully canvassed later, and to clarify the expression. Please discuss before reverting.--Jack Upland 09:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, there really is no debate over of the fact that the Rosenbergs were Soviet spies. To minimize this in the introduction when the body of mater in the rest of the article presents this overwhelming case does not sit well. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this discussion page clearly attests there is debate. I don't think the introduction as I amended it did distort the body of the article, but I don't intend to change the wording. I do wonder, though, whether the emphasis on the end of the Cold War is desirable. Many people always believed the Rosenbergs were guilty. Some like me don't believe this. The release of the Venona Transcripts has had what is probably a transient effect. A current left-liberal response has been to agree the Rosenbergs (or at least Julius) were spies but not necessarily 'atom spies'. This is rather perverse. I think the intro should recognise the allegation they were executed for - hence my edit. Wikipedia should present the case for the uninitiated, not prejudge or confuse the issue.--Jack Upland 09:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

666 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.82.18.254 (talk) 15:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yet another illustration of the prejudice and dogmatism that pervades this discussion.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In the introduction it says: "In a letter to The New York Times soon after the Roberts article appeared..." but there is no prior reference to any Roberts article and only by looking at the bibliography can one guess at what is meant. Andygx (talk) 08:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Weasely article

This whole article reflects the in-club liberal bias of wikipedia. Even in a case where the commie-excusers got PROVEN WRONG, there is all kind of strained defense of the now discredited liberal sympathy for the Rosenbergs. I'm glad they're dead. USA! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.126.219 (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you're a stupid ferret. Libel club roolz, yeah!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 11:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Considering these two were more or less the first victims of what later became McCarthyism, there should be sympathy. What they did was not bad enough to warrant execution, or even a long prison sentence. Communism as evil is an ignorant conservative view that does not in any way fit with reality. There were many innocent victims of the Communist witch hunts. --12.201.55.10 (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Brandon Harwell

I read Wikipedia for at least two or three hours each day (I know, I need a hobby), but I choose to not get involved with the editing process (except one minor edit) because it seems that it often leads to petty bickering among those with different political views. But in this case, I'd just like to point out to the person that made the above statement. Even if you think the Rosenbergs were "innocent victims" of a "witch hunt", to make the statment "Communism as evil is an ignorant conservative view that does not in any way fit with reality" is completely ridiculous and is a blatant lie. According to the The Black Book of Communism article, there have been approximately 94 million deaths attributed to Communism. Even if you are skeptical to that number, a conservative estimate of 50 million deaths is still 50 million too many lost lives. Think about your statement and what the true definition of "evil" means to you. Also, I hope that most people that read his comment doesn't think his view of "reality" is accurate. --204.94.250.140 (talk) 07:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

How many are estimated to be victims of capitalism or are anti-capitalists just not that puerile?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Good question. If you can find a legitmate source to estimate the number, then please let us know. But that doesn't excuse the fact that tens of millions have died because of Communism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgnosticPreachersKid (talk • contribs) 11:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are legitimate sources to estimate the deaths due to the Holocaust (a capitalist product of the capitalist-backed Nazi regime), and probably to estimate some deaths due to capitalist European imperialism (conquest and governance of the Americas, Africa, Asia, Australasia etc...) and deaths caused by capitalist wars (such as WWI, 2, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq etc) and deaths due to capitalist regimes in South Africa, Latin America, and Asia, and deaths due to a miscellaneous number of capitalism-derived incidents such as the Irish Potato Famine, Bhopal etc, etc. But then, as I said, I don't think any anti-capitalist has been so petty to tote up that death toll, have they? And what on earth does this have to do with the Rosenbergs???--Jack Upland (talk) 10:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Umm, and the commies killed 100 million and counting. Yeah, try and erase users comments, they will just get placed back here. The commies caused the korean war, vietnam, greek civil war, finnish civil war, spanish civil war, russian civil war among other nightmares like the gulag system in almost every other communist country. What a nutcase you are Jack. Go back to the outback, ok? YankeeRoman(65.222.151.74 (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC))

I have never tried to erase other user's comments.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

"due to the Holocaust (a capitalist product of the capitalist-backed Nazi regime)" You do realize that Nazi stands for Nationalsozialismus (National Socialism). Oh, you silly liberals. Sorry to break your spirit. Travis T. Cleveland (talk) 07:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think it's irrelevant if people call themselves "liberal", "socialist", "democratic" etc... Just look at the contradictory examples...--Jack Upland (talk) 11:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Spelling

I changed the spelling of "centre" back to "center." If there is a reason this article should be written in Commonwealth English or a dialect other than American, let me know. --Amaltheus (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No victims here!

This was removed before, no its back. This article should show more on how bad these people were. There is little empahsis at all on these obvious traitors. Wiki articles have to be maintained with better analysis and less bias.

YankeeRoman(65.222.151.74 (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC))

What specific information do you think should be added to show how bad the Rosenbergs were?--Jack Upland (talk) 05:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding my edits to those by 216.194.56.179

Rather than respond to a rambling and typo-ridden personal attack from an anonymous user by deleting the entirety of their edit, I have addressed each change I am making here. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarification or citation?

"The guilt of the Rosenbergs and the appropriateness of their sentence have been subject of perennial debate. However, information released after the Cold War has been taken as confirming a charge against Julius about espionage, but not in relation to atomic bombs, at least."

What does this mean? What is the information released after the Cold War? Is it fact or opinion that this information "has been taken as confirming a charge"?

Also, I think that it is important for people in this discussion to remember something: Being found innocent or guilty is different than whether the offense was committed or not. The fact is they were found guilty. Whether they committed the offenses they were charged with is separate. Amsibert (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Adding POV tag

This is a decent article: well written, good coverage. However, it does show quite a bit of bias, so Im adding a POV tag. The article is, overall, biased as an apology of the Rosenbergs, and needs more balance. Specifically:

1) The intro has the line "The guilt of the Rosenbergs and the appropriateness of their sentence have been subject of perennial debate; however, information released after the Cold War has been taken as confirming a charge against Julius about espionage, but not in relation to atomic bombs." and the final phrase's emphasis is misleading in tone and emphasis.

2) The sentence "Recent information does not support the charge that the Rosenbergs provided information that led to the Soviet Union developing the atomic bomb—the rationale for their execution" (in Trial section) is misleading both in fact and by omission. Recent post-cold-war evidence does show that J. Rosenberg knew about the fact that the information was relevant to the atomic bomb. Also, by emphasizing what he was _not_ (purportedly) guilty of, it omits a statement of what he was (certainly) guilty of.

3) This article must have a dedicated (named) section focusing on the post-cold-war information that has emerged, and how it sheds more light on the guilt/innocence debate, and how it puts to rest much of the controversy.

4) In summary: the overall tone of this article is "J. Rosenberg was innocent, or if not innocent, just a little bit guilty". Whereas recent research shows the opposite. Even if one disagrees with the assertion that his guilt is certain, that other viewpoint (that he was guilty) deserves a named section in this article.

After the above 4 issues are resolved, the POV tag can be removed. --Noleander (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't think the debate is over whether he supplied documents to the Soviets, that has been confirmed. It is whether the sentence was appropriate compared to the other Atomic Spies, who were jailed and released after a few years. I agree changes are needed in the wording and better referencing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Fundamentally the intro should be an introduction to the article, not a forum to debate its contents. With this in mind I will pare back the intro to its essentials. (PS I don't think anything about the Rosenbergs has been "confirmed" by Venona. There's just more controversy and confusion.)--Jack Upland (talk) 10:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Lead section

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless must not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article.

The removal of the ammount of material from the lead clearly conflicts with this. The lead should touch on a little bit of all the main points in the article. In addition, your opinion on what was or was not confirmed in Venona is non notable, and in stark contrast with nearly everone who has written about this subject. CENSEI (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The addition of the ammount of material clearly conflicts with the 11th word of your quotable.Yeago (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The article is very sympathetic toward the Rosenbergs.Lestrade (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

What do you think should be changed?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I can see where you're going with this...

Although the notes allegedly typed by Ethel apparently contained little that was relevant to the Soviet atomic bomb project, this was sufficient evidence for the jury to convict on the conspiracy to commit espionage charge. It was suggested that part of the reason Ethel was indicted along with Julius was so that the prosecution could use her as a 'lever' to pressure Julius into giving up the names of others who were involved. If that was the case, it did not work. On the witness stand, Julius asserted his right under the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment to not incriminate himself whenever asked about his involvement in the Communist Party or with its members. Ethel did similarly. Neither defendant was viewed sympathetically by the jury.

That does sound sort of POV. However, I sort of felt like there was some POV in the way they constantly mentioned the phrases "left-wing and "communist" next to each other a lot (though that might just be because of the constant attacks on Obama during the election about socialism). Still, two POVs from different sides doesn't make it neutral.--Montaced (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree there is too much POV in the article, from many different sides - not just two. The way to get round this is to stick to the agreed-on facts, including the fact that there is a controversy. The problem here is that so many facts are in dispute and many parties are unwilling to acknowledge this. (I don't, however, think Obama is relevant, but then I'm not American.) With the intro, I think the problem is not that it touches on controversy, but that it has a tendency to become a miniature battleground in which every counteroffensive adds to its size and ignores the body of the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

POV material added under Sobell's confession

recently added material is given in quotes

"Sobell finally admitted on September 11, 2008, that he and Julius Rosenberg were guilty as charged, an admission that undermines much of the conjecture in this entire encyclopedic entry."

-It is questionable that this confession can clear up exactly what actions were taken by Ethel.

"The issue was finally resolved on September 11, 2008, when co-defendent Morton Sobell admitted that he and Julius Rosenberg were guilty. He believed Ethel was aware of the espionage, but did not actively participate.

"Until the 2008 confession of co-defendent Morton Sobell and implication of Julius, their case had been at the center of the controversy over Communism in the United States, with supporters incorrectly maintaining that their conviction was an egregious example of persecution typical of the "hysteria" of those times (see McCarthyism) and likening it to the witch hunts that marred Salem and medieval Europe (a comparison that provided the inspiration for Arthur Miller's critically acclaimed play, The Crucible). "

-Again, Sobell doesn't know about Ethel's participation, so how can the issue of her guilt be "resolved"?

-Also, David Greenglass' recantation of his testimony is buried at the bottom of the article under Post Execution, but statements relating to Sobell's confession are throughout the article. That is not a balanced explanation to the reader.

Nightkey (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Seriously..... someone needs to roll back this asshole's edits. Actually, I'll do it. You want to write about Sobell's confession, fine, but don't pretend that this finally proves it was right to kill the Rosenbergs. Even though Julius was probably a spy, there's no such thing as a "nuclear secret" -- you can't draw a nuclear bomb on a napkin and slip it to the Soviets. He was a scapegoat, and Ethel was probably completely innocent, convicted by perjured testimony. However, that's my POV -- I'll keep it out of the article, maybe this bloodthirsty scumbag can extend the same courtesy. Dylanstillwood (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I just rolled back Fergdoug's comments. You can't say that Sobell's confession "resolves" anything, because it does not establish whether or not Julius's spying actually contributed to Russia's nuclear program, whether it was appropriate to execute them, how much other factors (like anti-Semitism or McCarthyism) were involved with their prosecution, how much Ethel was involved, etc. Also, Julius's spying was already pretty well established, so the confession is barely news. You might have opinions about the case, but there is NO factual basis for saying that Sobell's statement puts the whole controversy to rest. Any comment to that effect is POV and should be reverted. Dylanstillwood (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse my newbee errors; tried to edit the entry, but the edits did not "take" -- perhaps they need to be approved somewhere. The gist of my change was that a close reading of the New York Times article about Sobell's statements does not support the conclusion that he implicated Rosenberg in the transmission of atomic secrets. The article, which is indeed weasel-worded on the topic, says "And he implicated his fellow defendant Julius Rosenberg, in a conspiracy that delivered to the Soviets classified military and industrial information and what the American government described as the secret to the atomic bomb." Does this mean that he knows of a document Rosenberg provided to the Soviets that purported to be the "secret to the atomic bomb," or does it mean that Rosenberg provided various information, among which the US government claims was such a secret -- but of which he has no personal knowledge? Either may be the case, but a conclusion that Sobell implicated Rosenberg in atomic spying would require a definitive source.DaleyComment

Dylanstillwood's use of words "asshole" and "bloodthirsty scumbag" reveal an emotional element that distorts and obscures the factual discussions in this article. This user has taken the discussion to the level of a seventh–grade schoolyard tussle.Lestrade (talk) 22:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

The Sobell confession is based on a single short report of an interview. The confession itself is very vague and ignores important questions (like the precise nature of his activities and his knowledge of Julius Rosenberg's activities!). In the film "An Execution in the Family", Sobell makes similar comments about hypothetical industrial espionage and pro-Soviet sentiment but denies his guilt. I wonder if the confession will turn out to be more a confusion. The damning parts of the "confession" are actually comments by the reporter. It would be good to have a transcript of what was actually said. Until that time it is a slender basis to declare the case closed.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Introduction overproduction

There is too much information and too much disputation in the introduction. The introduction should merely introduce the article. But people are using it to include every new development in the case like the Sobell "confession".--Jack Upland (talk) 09:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, if this continues I will start deleting. To make matters worse a lot of the information being added in is wrong. I have just removed the editing by someone who didn't realise that Harry Gold was (allegedly) the courier for both Greenglass and Fuchs.
In the interest of fairness let's look at the intro as it stands now.

Julius Rosenberg (May 12, 1918 – June 19, 1953) and Ethel Greenglass Rosenberg (September 28, 1915 – June 19, 1953) were American communists who were executed in 1953 after having been found guilty of conspiracy to commit espionage. The charges were in relation to the passing of information about the atomic bomb to the Soviet Union. Their execution was the first of civilians, for espionage, in United States history.[1]

Fair enough. A bit wordy. Perhaps the citation belongs in the body of the article.

Since the execution, decoded Soviet cables have confirmed courtroom testimony that Julius acted as a courier and recruiter for the Soviets, but doubts remain about the level of Ethel's active involvement.

The Venona transcripts were apparently decoded before the trial and do not fit the allegations made in the trial. According to the trial Ethel had a more instrumental role (typing) than Julius who merely encouraged David Greenglass. It was Harry Gold who was named as the courier.

The decision to execute the Rosenbergs was, and still is, controversial. The other atomic spies that were caught by the FBI offered confessions and were not executed. Ethel's brother, David Greenglass, who supplied documents to Julius from Los Alamos, served 10 years of his 15 year sentence. Harry Gold, who identified Greenglass served 15 years in Federal prison as the courier for him and the British scientist, Klaus Fuchs. Morton Sobell, who was tried with the Rosenbergs, served 17 years and 9 months. In 2008, Sobell admitted he was a spy and confirmed Julius Rosenberg was "in a conspiracy that delivered to the Soviets classified military and industrial information and what the American government described as the secret to the atomic bomb."

This belongs in the body of the article. It is partly an illustration of the severity of the Rosenbergs sentence and partly a discussion of the Sobell confession.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

First civilians executed for spying

Who was the next civilian executed in the United States for spying? I would like to add a succession box. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I doubt there was any. The execution of the Rosenbergs was an extreme act considering their supposed crime.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Motivation

I am far from knowledgable on the subject, and I may have missed it in the article, but does it speak to the subject of the Rosenbergs' motivation? I've heard it suggested, in the most charitable way possible, that Julius was thought that giving the Soviets (and possibly others) the nuclear bomb would save the world, preventing nuclear war through nuclear parity.75.111.158.23 (talk) 09:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

An interesting viewpoint. I've heard something similar in this case (not just with the Rosenbergs, but amongst many working on the Manhattan project or it's descendants). Although from the "western" viewpoint, any action that reduces or eliminates western advantage in this manner can be considered treasonous, we do have to admit that there are other viewpoints out there. And let's face it, if the Rosenberg's had been spying on the Soviets for America, they would be national heroes now (who knows, history may one day show that the US Nuclear programme was aided significantly by similar espionage). Perhaps their motivation was at least in part to "level the battlefield" somewhat, lest any one country hold significant technical advantage (whether it was their "place" to make such determinations is another matter).
In any discussion about Nuclear proliferation, then or now, the argument always comes around to "you shouldn't have it but we should". Isn't it odd how the nations that have nuclear weapons are so adamant that others not possess them?
Posthocergopropterhoc (talk) 03:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, the Rosenbergs went to their deaths protesting their innocence, so any discussion of motivation is highly speculative. Secondly, they were unapologetic Communists and partisans of the Soviet Union, and hence the "parity" argument seems less appropriate to them than to later, more "liberal" apologists. Thirdly, as the supposed spying took place during WW2 the Cold War context didn't pertain. The Soviet Union was an ally. The supposed spying was therefore legally no different to leaking information to Britain, which apparently did occur during the Manhattan Project.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Julius and Ethel Rosenberg/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of July 18, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.


  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):
    b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    • Sources provided are are Ok, all some are bare urls and some newspaper stories are not properly cited, the date and pare should be there. I would suggest using the cite news tag. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its scope.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Venona

There is now no section on or discussion of the Venona evidence even though it is cited in the introduction.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"auto-da-fés"

This edit changed "auto-da-fés" to "autos-de-fé". The latter is, in fact, correct, but it is in a direct quotation. The matter is complicated by the fact that the quoted remark was presumably originally made in French, but the citation is an English-language sourse, so it is not entirely clear whose version we should follow. I believe, though, that if we are citing Walter Schneir, and if he used the less felicitous translation, we should stick with his translation even if it is not optimal. - Jmabel | Talk 03:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg/Archive_1&oldid=405292251"