Posted on 10/19/2002 10:48:25 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets
I watched the Nova report on the "Rosenbergs" last February 5th with a strange mix of nausea and fascination. Since the guilt of the Rosenbergs (as defined by statute) has been proven beyond any doubt what is left for their defenders? That bigger fish got away? That they were morally and intellectually superior human beings and therefore not bound by the laws of a government established by slave-holding White males? (This is known in law as the Kathleen Soliah defense.) Nova did manage to avoid the assertion that the information was not of value to the Soviets. (It was, though not critical.)
They even let slip that Ethel Rosenberg importuned her sister-in-law to pressure her own brother, David Greenglass, into supplying information to the Soviets, which sort of shreds the loyal wife defense. (Actually, many believe that Ethel was the instigator, pressuring her henpecked husband into becoming an agent.) She was convicted of typing the information supplied by her brother, a fact that the Nova report inexplicably overlooked. They seem to claim that because the Soviets never actually named Ethel Rosenberg as an "agent" in any of their cable traffic or in the Moscow archives, she is not guilty of espionage. But she is identified as Julius' wife (she did not have a code name, he was code named LIBERAL) and in context it is pretty clear that she was an active participant, and so recognized by Moscow.
I'm baffled about the point of the report. Essentially, the thesis is that Joe McCarthy was correct, but he had no right to be, mostly because he was the wrong sort of person. Apparently the report started out as a report on the Venona decrypts (I'm speculating). The Venona decrypts are interesting, the result of persistence and intellectual rigor on the part of the Americans (the bad guys) and procedural sloppiness and endemic laziness on the part of the Soviets (the good guys in our drama). In PBS-land that dog won't hunt.
Airing Ethel Rosenberg's son's claim that his mother was "murdered in cold blood by this government" is unspeakably callous. He in not a disinterested party and is hardly in a position to be objective. His mother's life might have been spared if she, or her husband, had named other Soviet agents. Some find her behavior heroic. But if she loved her son, won't she have been more concerned about assuring that he had a home to grow up in and less in the progress of international communism? The future will work itself out, without the exertions of any one of us, but our children need us uniquely to ensure their future. As parents, the Rosenbergs were failures. Sacrificing your children to some messianic ego trip is no more noble than sacrificing them to drugs or alcohol. But don't tell her son that.
With such intelligence and acumen, I can see why you are Lonesome in the Bay State.
Have we discussed this before?
I can already see the editorials being written to savage such a notion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.