Jump to content

Talk:Julius and Ethel Rosenberg/Archive 2

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

Moved to talk page

This seems like a non sequitor in the text about an interview in the New York Times, I am not sure if it is quoting the person that the information falls under or is just an aside and should be demoted to a footnote. "Igor Vasilevich Kurchatov was given even the vaguest information by Lavrentiy Beria concerning where the voluminous wealth of information, including top secret physics research, accurate drawings of the American gun and implosion bomb designs and detonators, originated. All other scientists in the Soviet atomic bomb problem were told that there was a competing cadre of Soviet scientists known as "Bureau No. 2".[1]" --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced

Reports of the execution state that Julius died after the first application of electricity, but Ethel did not succumb immediately and was subjected to two more electrical charges before being pronounced dead.[citation needed] The chair was designed for a man of average size, and Ethel Rosenberg was a petite woman; this discrepancy resulted, it is claimed, in the electrodes fitting poorly and making poor electrical contact.

There was a string of citation needed tags throughout the Rosenberg's Children section from July 2009. I found it kind of ridiculous to request a citation for every single statement in the section so I removed them. Citations for the Strange Fruit statements are easily found by going to the wikipedia article linked to in that sentence. Most of the statements regarding son, Robert Meeropol can be attributed in the Democracy Now interview now cited. Although it seems silly to require citations for the fact that he wrote a book (it's easier to check Amazon than to check the citations). Also added a citation for Heir to an Execution despite the well referenced wikipidia article link for Ivy Meeropol. If anyone takes issue with this reasoning please advise. (68.89.172.192 (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC))

The Ultimate (Hopefully Simple) Question

Was Julius Rosenberg a SPY in any degree for the Soviet Union? If not, was he aware of others who were spying for the USSR?

I'm sorry but for those of us who are trying to follow the discussion + main article, it is confusing to determine if Julius Rosenberg was in truth and in fact, guilty of some sort of spying to whatever degree for the Soviet Union. For those of you who consider yourselves experts, please clearly give an affirmative or negative to this question. If you do NOT in your informed opinion think that Julius was a spy to some degree, then please answer the following question as to whether you think Julius was aware of illicit spying activities carried out by people he knew. This/these basic questions interest many people who may want the most basic undisputable facts for the purpose of educational discussion regarding, for example: (Arthur Miller's THE CRUCIBLE, capital punishment & psychology) etc... Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.241.64.109 (talk) 07:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this is answered by the article. The Rosenbergs' conviction and subsequent (vague) allegations all centre around a conspiracy. No one, as far as I know, alleges that Julius had personal access to information helpful to the USSR. According to others, notably Greenglass, the Rosenbergs were instrumental in an espionage operation. Hence the issue revolves around whether you believe, on the evidence, the Rosenbergs were part of such a conspiracy or not. Only you can answer that question.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The current historical consensus, which I do think the article reflects, is "yes, Julius was the head of a spy ring, and received information that was then passed on to the Soviet Union." The areas of dispute are generally 1. was the court case and sentencing fair, and 2. was Ethel actually very involved in it. That Julius was a spy is pretty well supported by the Venona decrypts, even though they require a lot of interpretation. The evidence really does not support the idea that they were swept up in arbitrary witch hunt. But it is a complicated case. --Mr.98 (talk)

If Julius was a spy, what was his role? Why did the KGB officers in America need an intermediary to deal with agents? What was the purpose served by having a third party listen in on top secret and incriminating transactions?--Jack Upland (talk) 10:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The last

Were the Rosenbergs the last persons executed in the USA for espionage? Olegwiki (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Or the only?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, what a surprise

How very shocking. The only quote on the controversy supposedly still surrounding the Rosenberg's execution contained in the opening is one clearly implying their execution was unjust, with an explicit claim that the execution occurred because of "hysteria". Such a one-sided quote does not belong in a paragraph that sets the tone for the entire entry. This is yet another prime example of why Wikipedia quite simply cannot be taken seriously on any subject that is even remotely political. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.155.6 (talk) 08:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, you could've edited it. I agree it should be changed. The issue is not just partisanship, but that material is put into the introduction which should be integrated into the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Moved from article

I cant find this in the New York Times archive:

In a subsequent letter to The New York Times, Sobell stated that he knew nothing about Julius Rosenberg's alleged involvement in atomic espionage and that Rosenberg never told him (Sobell) about any of his other espionage activities. Thus, the "secret of the Atom Bomb" aspect of the Rosenberg case remains a matter of sharp debate.[citation needed]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/nyregion/21rosenberg.html?_r=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.32.156 (talk) 06:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

"were Jewish American communists..."

Is that an appropriate phrase to lead the article? The source supporting the intro doesn't even mention they were Jews. WikifanBe nice 04:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Jewish Conspiracy

There are many Jews involved with treason: 

Morris Cohen
Harry Gold
David Greenglass (Rosenberg)
Theodore Alvin Hall
George Koval Abramovich
Saville Sax
Morton Sobell  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.34.171.207 (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


Notice that the characteristics of these Jews were that they were from Eastern European background, came from Yiddish speaking families, were sympathetic towards communism and the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union, at the same time, had been very supportive of Yiddish, and Jewish autonomy prior to WW II. Basically, this is exactly the same type of Jew that Hitler was describing in Mein Kampf, and exactly the same type of Jews that the Nazis killed in the extermination camps in eastern Europe (such as Auschwitz). Did the United States see the same type of enemy in these Jews, that the Nazis did? Was the U.S. in a certain sense, continuing the Nazi mission of combating the spread of communism and bolshevism? Or did they in fact, take over that mission from the Nazis? If so, they weren't really too bright, were they?Jimhoward72 (talk) 23:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's much of a point being made here, apart from antisemitism. There was a long-standing Jewish involvement in socialism, going back to the days of Marx and Engels, which predates the USSR and the Nazis. This is largely due to them being a persecuted minority with an intellectual bent. However, this no more makes them "traitors" than the masses of other people round the world in the socialist movement. Rosenberg case involved an New York Jewish milieu, but other Soviet spies came from very different backgrounds, such as the Cambridge spies, Klaus Fuchs, Aldrich Ames etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

controversiality of execution

Having reviewed the archival discussion, and verified the wording of the New York Times editorial on the 50th anniversary of the execution, I removed the neutrality-disputed and reliable-source? tags from the statement that the decision to execute the Rosenbergs was and remains controversial. The existence of such an editorial in a major newspaper shows that there is controversy. However, I left the neutrality-disputed tag in for the next sentence where the word hysteria, taken from the editorial, is re-used as if referring to an established fact, as opposed an opinion that some people disagree with.CharlesHBennett (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Speech

Hello. I am a student, and I am writing a speech on this topic for my English Class. I found it to be very sad, interesting, and educational; that is why I chose it to be my topic. I think that your site has helped me immensely, and I thank you for all the wonderful information that you provided me with. I just wanted to notify you and give you my thanks.

Well that's nice. I never contributed to this artical, but I'm sure the editors who did appreciate hearing that  : ) Codenamemary (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Executed secret agents

As far as I can see, this belongs to the "Executed secret agents" category. I added it, but perhaps a "secret agent" has a narrower definition. If it is wrong, feel free to fix it. (And if it is right, delete this comment). --Taejo 7 July 2005 18:57 (UTC)

"Innocence" Bias?

On german Wikipedia it says "The accusation of espionage was not supported by any conclustive evidence or any testimony on the part of the couple". This seems highly biased to me. The argument is basically saying that even if the Rosenbergs were ultimately found guilty, this conclusion did not ensue from the testimony and evidence presented in court at the time, so they should have been found innocent, but because it was a show trial staged by evil Mc-Carthyists, they perverted the course of justice to get the couple killed anyway. Any expert on american law available to give me sources to confirm or debunk this claim? It also says "The Jury were under very high pressure". Any sources to confirm or debunk this claim? Yes I know that it's the job of the people who make these claims to provide sources and not mine to debunk them... Oecherbahn (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

As indicated in the article, the conviction of the Rosenbergs stands or falls on the testimony of Ethel's brother, David Greenglass, who wasn't a very credible witness.
The comment about the jury probably relates to the backdrop of the Korean War and the judge's comments.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I get that communist propaganda and the Rosenberg's defense attorney tried to impugn David Greenglass' credibility (what other choice did they have?) describing testimony which, it turns out, was 100% true as being "not very credible" is absurd. In the 1950's you could pretend that this was a debatable issue. In the present day of 2013 we have seen the intercepted KGB cables indicating they were both spies; we have had multiple KGB officials testify that they were both spies; and seen multiple people emerge with documentary evidence from the KGB saying that they were both spies. Justin Bacon (talk) 07:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Khrushchev

Khrushchev's memoirs have been described, however, as a "rambling, repetitive, sometimes self-contradictory, sometimes inaccurate, usually tendentious narrative in no sort of order and full of gaps"[2]

This text, which I added, was removed on the grounds that it was "subjective" and "irrelevant". On the contrary, it is the considered opinion of the editor of the memoirs, who knows them better than most, and it is highly relevant because it casts doubt on how accurate Khrushchev's memory really was. There are plenty of examples in the text: for instance, Khrushchev says Stalin told him Roosevelt was an Irish immigrant.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I have now added a direct quotation from the text and have removed the following:


This passage does not specifically refer to the Rosenbergs, but to "good people" who assisted with the development of the bomb. Khrushchev goes on to say "They were neither agents nor spies for the Soviet Union"... "I believe they were not Communists" (Glasnost Tapes, p 193), which specifically excludes the Rosenbergs or shows that he doesn't know what he's talking about.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Was Ethel in fact falsely accused of espionage?

Two articles have very conflicting data.

The article on Ethel Rosenberg says she was correctly convicted as a Communist spy. On the other hand, the Wikipedia article on Joseph McCarthy indicates that, unlike her husband, she was falsely accused and then subsequently executed. We need to get this straight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larryblau (talk • contribs) 14:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The articles should indicate there are still differences of opinion about the case.
The argument for Ethel's innocence is based evidence from the Venona transcripts and the grand jury which suggests she played no active role, contradicting the trial testimony. However, she was convicted of conspiracy, not for specific acts. It is not clear what Julius was supposed to have done either. On the other hand, it could be argued that the discrepancies cast doubt over the entire case, in particular over David Greenglass's testimony which was pivotal in the trial.
The fact is Ethel was convicted. There are no clear facts about what she or Julius did.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Completely glosses over American military casualties resulting from Rosenberg's espionage

Quite separately from the espionage targeting the atomic bomb program was the Rosenbergs' passing of top secret design information on the proximity fuze used to make anti-aircraft and field artillery weapons significantly more effective and lethal.

Proximity fuzes made by the Soviets using Rosenberg-supplied information were used to kill thousands of American and allied soldiers and airmen in Korea, Viet Nam and other conflicts where Soviet-supplied AA guns and missiles, and field artillery weapons were fielded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.195.84 (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The proximity fuze is mentioned in the Career section. However, it was not the espionage the Rosenbergs were tried for. Long range calculation of the consequences of their alleged actions, or anyone's else actions, is highly speculative.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

USa and USSR allies as of when?

The article states that the USA became the ally of the USSR after it was attacked by Nazi Germany in June 1941, during operation Barbarossa, when the US itself only entered the war as a result of Pearl Harbor in December 1941. Whilst the US supported the USSR via Lend-Lease programs, I am not sure if people in Britain or the USSR would regard the USA as having been an 'ally' until it formally entered the war. I'm willing to be contradicted though, if anyone can cite evidence to the contrary JTzara (talk) 13:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

If you want to chage it to entry of the US into WWII, I can't really formally argue. Though personally I think that even if Allies in the capital letter sense of the Grand Alliance of WW II, the US became an ally of both the UK after it declared war on Germany in 1939, and the UK [¿USSR?] after it was invaded in June 1941. Lend-lease (extended to the USSR in Sept, 1941) was essentially a giveaway. And it had nothing to do with lending in the normal sense of that word. The US was to lend the UK ships, and then get them back at the end of the war, perhaps from the bottom of the ocean? Lend the USSR aircraft and get them back after "use," certainly obsolete and used up, if not full of holes or blown to pieces? Bizzare. Lend-lease was a political way that FDR got around congress in order to pretend to be neutral. It made no business sense, and is not a relationship that one can imagine any country would ever doing with other truly neutral country. It was not the sort of thing the US would have done with Mexico or South America. It made sense only to help friends (the UK) and to help allies (the USSR) in the struggle against German and Japanese aggression (a bit like the mercenary Flying Tigers of the end of 1941, which was a U.S. gift to China, clandestinely financed with loaned money). The USSR was not a US friend. Ally is a much better and more descriptive and true word. An ally of necessity. SBHarris 03:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I rather do want to change it! It's not just a question of the semantics regarding 'ally' and 'friend' or 'friendly country'. The passage doesn't even reference Pearl Harbor, and seems to suggest that the US declared war on Germany altruistically as a result of operation Barbarossa. I think this matters in this article as the relationships between the USSR and the US are important- one would not want to give the false impression that the USSR was spitefully spying on a benevolent and supportive US, biting the hand that fed it, when the picture is more complex. Furthermore, for many outside of the US, America is not perceived as an ally until it joined the war, regardless of lend lease, and the suggestion that it was on a par with the other Allies during this time is borderline offensive to those who fought and died during this period. Lend Lease is loved and remembered in the US, and it's impact should not be underestimated, but in the UK and Russia it is regarded (at least now if not at the time) as rather a lame half-measure that bankrupted these countries whilst boosting the US economy and fell well short of actual involvement. The matter is further complicated by the fact that the sides in the conflict are known as the 'Allies' and the 'Axis'. Whilst one might conceivably consider Spain for example, as an 'Ally of the Axis', or 'Friendly to the Axis', to regard it as _part_ of the Axis seems just plain wrong. likewise, I would suggest that the US was 'friendly to the Allies', but not an 'Ally' until it actually declared war as a result of being attacked. 'Ally to the Allies' seems clumsy, as I agree does 'Friendly to Russia'. I would suggest something along the lines of
"Following the assault on the USSR by Nazi Germany, the US provided substantial support to the Soviet Union, leading ultimately to Germany's declaration of war on the US after the Japanese assault on Pearl Harbor brought it into the war, putting the two future superpowers on the same side of the conflict. However, suspicions regarding Joseph Stalin's long term intentions remained high in the U.S. government, certainly outside of Roosevelt's immediate circle, and the Americans jealously guarded their research on the Manhattan project from all the other Allies, including France and Britain."
To be a pedant, I don't even find this very satisfactory, as it was the UK (specifically Churchill) who was suspicious about Stalins long term intentions- Roosevelt was more inclined to sideline British concerns in the belief that Russia could broadly be trusted. However, I assume that this was not the case generally in the US administration, so I think the above is more or less satisfactory.JTzara (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I have simplified the passage. I don't see why we need to summarise the history of the war here. For the purposes of this article, the two countries were wartime allies, but the USSR was not involved in the Manhattan Project. (The bomb was kept secret from the British as well, but British scientists like Fuchs were involved.) I have also deleted information about Oppenheimer etc because it doesn't relate to the Rosebergs.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

"...true Talmudic tradition..."

Quote from article; "David Greenglass, Ethel Rosenberg's brother and key prosecution witness, in true Talmudic tradition, recanted his testimony about his sister's typed notes."

Can anyone understand the reference here? It makes absolutely no sense to me and seems POV at the very least. Is it possibly just antisemitic? Either way it's hard to understand what the writer was really going for. Or am I just overlooking something? I do admit that could be the case because I am confused! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.218.249 (talk) 07:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I've deleted it. The user has been making anti-Semitic edits.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Editor Lalalacomeon

I've just posted this note to Lalalacomeon's talk page:

Hi, I just reverted your edit, because it seems to me you made significant changes to sourced information without any explanation. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello. A couple of editors have reverted your edits at Julius and Ethel Rosenberg as good faith but improper changes. Your persistence indicates you may not be editing in the best of faith. I am restoring the original text and request that you not make any further edits without engaging on the talk page. Thank you.

I'm working on restoring the text right now. Yopienso (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Details of execution

I admit the details of the execution are rather grisly, even though they are brief. However, the gory details of the Rosenbergs' execution is one of the major elements of their story -- two possibly innocent civilians being executed by one of the most heinous and inhuman methods available. Please decide whether the execution details should be included in the article. -- Modemac

Suggestion for further research: I recall reading something about the opening of Soviet archives, and there being some information regarding the Rosenbergs' execution/crimes. I've also read that Julius took 3 tries & Ethel 5 - but I don't have a good source on that. And did you mention that they left behind 2 young sons? ~ender 2003-04-02 23:45 MST

Two possibly innocent civilians? How much more evidence has to be provided concerning their guilt before idiots stop claiming that the Rosenbergs weren't clearly guilty? And the fact they left behind two young sons is completely irrelevant. Many executed criminals leave behind innocent family members; they should have thought of that before they passed secrets to the Soviets. The seeming implication that this somehow makes the Rosenberg's execution that much more unjust is farcical. Passing secrets to the Soviets endangered everyone living in the United States(I will not bother to mention the other countries, as the case was tried in American courts). Capital punishment has long been a potential penalty for espionage in this country, and it still is. It was heartily deserved in this case.
Guilty of possibly being part of a conspiracy to give scientific information to an ally... Comment made in the hope that this section is archived.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

What kind of value did the Rosenbergs provide to the Soviet Union?

The second sentence in the article states: They were instrumental in the transmission of information about top-secret military technology and prototypes of mechanisms related to the atomic bomb, which were of value to the Soviet nuclear weapons program and also provided top-secret radar, sonar, and jet propulsion engines to the Soviet Union

(Presumably the second part refers to plans rather than actual artifacts.)

But the bibliography provided doesn't seem to unambiguously support the idea that the prototypes of mechanisms were so valuable.

Reference 3 (by American author and educator Radosh) does, but reference 56 (from the NYT) quotes the director of the facility where the Soviet bombs were made as stating that they got nothing from the Rosenbergs. I'm not sure how the Wikipedia's doctrine of 'reliable sources' plays out here, but the article seems to be weighting the Weekly Standard more heavily than the NYT. Of course, that may actually be the truth, but references provided seem to add up to a kind of murky total (and i suppose that the actual material that they provided is not available for independent assessment).

Son of eugene (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Accounts differ.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
In equity, if any spies working on the Soviets' behalf were executed owing to the extent to which they aided the Soviet nuclear program, Klaus Fuchs, Donald MacLean, David Greenglass and Harry Gold ought to have been before or with the Rosenbergs. Fuchs was the man without whom the idea of thermonuclear weapons and so much other crucial and hard to develop design and scientific information would never have left Los Alamos, Gold moved Fuchs' information to Russian handlers. David Greenglass allowed the Soviet nuclear program not to have to design the explosive lens array at the center of the plutonium bomb. MacLean was the Russians' eyes and ears in high-level Anglo-American cooperation during the Manhattan Project. None of these men died, so I concur with Alan Dershowitz that while the Rosenbergs were guilty and unquestionably so of spying for Stalin, they were "framed" to the extent that they died while three incomparably more guilty Soviet spies lived. The preponderance of guilt in this case was forced on the Rosenbergs' shoulders where it did not belong.
I'm re-reading Richard Rhodes' history of the invention of thermonuclear weapons, Dark Sun, and finding myself of two minds on the question of whether the Rosenbergs ought to have died at all. The nuclear secrets they helped steal for the Soviets may have emboldened Stalin to back Kim Il Sung in his invasion of South Korea, which carried an eventual price tag of 1.2 million (according to sources cited in our article Korean War) military and civilian deaths. Had the US continued to enjoy a substantive nuclear monopoly in 1950, it's unlikely that invasion would have occurred. Rhodes states that his sources say Stalin was apprehensive about backing the invasion even with his small arsenal of fission bombs. The Rosenbergs intended to move considerable military technology (not merely the explosive lens and other technology for imploding plutonium which David Greenglass personally transferred to the Soviets) and it's not possible to say whether or not the Soviets would have eventually gotten most of it through Lend-lease. The issue, ultimately, rested on whether or not the Rosenbergs had the mens rea or "ready mind" - the willingness and awareness to commit a grave crime, and proceeded to commit it, aware of its consequences - Soviet world domination. They were committed Communists and desired that goal.
In the matter of weighting, there's no basis, given sources from the Weekly Standard and New York Times to prefer either per se. Both sources have been WP:BIASED for years. We ought to use our best judgment in weighting source material. Citing Ronald Radosh as a source for the assertion that the Soviet nuclear program got nothing from the Rosenbergs is, by itself WP:UNDUE - views of other historians with other perspectives on the matter should be presented. Richard Rhodes, who was severely critical of the Rosenbergs' execution, interviewed most of the still-surviving staff of the original Soviet nuclear program, and he does no more than say that there's disagreement on that point. Rhodes has flaws, of course - including a huge vendetta against Edward Teller he pushes through almost the last three-quarters of Dark Sun. Rhodes tends to bend over backwards in being charitable toward Ethel and Julius Rosenberg - but there's nothing in his extensive description of the material supplied to Igor Kurchatov through the NKVD and GRU's combined atomic spy network to absolve the Rosenbergs of complicity in that spy effort. They were complicit in helping Fuchs' material move into Soviet hands. And a nuclear arsenal emboldened Stalin in his expansion of Communism throughout Europe and Asia, so blood was on the Rosenbergs' hands, arguably. loupgarous (talk) 01:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, as I said, accounts differ... We should summarise what reliable sources say, and clearly indicate that this is an opinion, whether it's an opinion by the New York Times and Washington Post, or the New York Post and Washington Times. Of course historians are biased. Even I am partisan. In addition, reflective retrospective crystal ball g(r)azing is problematic. If the Rosenbergs had not been spying (if they were), would the Korean War (the origins of which are contested) have occurred anyway? And even if they did cause the war, are they responsible for the carnage? Is April Glaspie responsible for the carnage of the Gulf War and the Iraq War? Is Hitler responsible for the Cold War or the Israeli-Palestine conflict? These are questions we can't answer while the hourglass sand flows... As Kissinger said Zhou said, it's too early to tell. And we could wool-gather till the cows come home and the chickens return to roost. But at the going down of the sun and in the misty mornings of consciousness, I've lost the thread of the conversation in the stream of the collective unconscious... In summary, we should uphold the policies of Wikipedia (which I know we all hold to be holy writ) and avoid violating WP:UNDUE, WP:FORUM, and most of all WP:TEMPLAR as much as is humanly possible. In fact, we should avoid Wikipedia policy discussions altogether. That being said, I don't think you know what "equity" means in a legal sense.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I misused the term "equity". I meant "fairness". That said, there's abundant evidence in reliable sources that Gold and the Rosenbergs were complicit in the transfer of classified nuclear weapon design information from Fuchs (and the team Greenglass worked with by his own efforts). If the Rosenbergs deserved death, so did Gold, Greenglass, Fuchs, and MacLean, each of whom engaged in espionage on United States soil.
Practical considerations (the British declining to extradite Fuchs to face charges carrying the death penalty and and MacLean's defection to the Soviet Union) saved Fuchs's and MacLean's lives. That left Gold and the Rosenbergs. Gold sold Greenglass out, and David and Ruth Greenglass sold the Rosenbergs out. All of that's in reliable sources. I was answering the OP's question "What kind of value did the Rosenbergs provide to the Soviet Union?", and not writing for an article here. Broadly construed, the Soviets got incredible value for the few thousand dollars in bribes, gifts and expenses for their spies in and around the Manhattan Project (that figure comes from Rhodes' Dark Sun, as well as the following information).
Richard Rhodes describes interviews with the surviving Soviet nuclear weapons team in which the information relayed from Fuchs and Greenglass through the Gold/Rosenberg network played a central role in that research and development effort. The Soviet espionage apparatus and nuclear weapons decision-makers (the NKVD's Lavrentiy Beria controlled both) distrusted the espionage results as possible disinformation, but Igor Kurchatov explicitly asked for all available intelligence of other nation' nuclear research and tachnology. When the father of the Soviet atomic bomb specifically asks for something from the head of Soviet intelligence, it's important, and the Rosenbergs were part of that intelligence effort.
The Army Security Agency's Meredith Gardner supplied decrypts of Soviet cable traffic which FBI agent Robert Lamphere was able to use to identify Ethel Rosenberg as a Soviet espionage contact in 1948; the same group of decrypts were later used to identify Klaus Fuchs as the main spy inside Los Alamos; the arrest of Klaus Fuchs caused Julius Rosenberg to urge David Greenglass to leave the United States as soon as possible, giving them four thousand dollars to do so. And that request caused the Greenglasses to testify against the Rosenbergs for leverage in a plea bargain (as did Harry Gold). All of that's in Dark Sun and the sources Rhodes cites to support it.
You're right that from there, what follows is largely crystal-ball stuff. Many sources point to the mutual desire of South Korea's Syngman Rhee and North Korea's Kim Il-Sung for a war of unification (of course, the outcomes each man desired were different), but anything that could have influenced the willingness of Stalin to ship massive war materiel to North Korea and Mao to send 300,000 "volunteers" to support the North Korean invasion mattered in those decisions.
To compare and contrast one of your examples and mine, whatever April Glaspie might have had on her person when speaking to Saddam Hussein, it wasn't a nuclear weapon. The Rosenbergs were part of the effort which gave Iosif Stalin one. Just in the way that intelligence on the direction of our efforts prevented the Soviets from making costly errors in reactor and nuclear weapon design, at the very least, the Rosenbergs gave the Soviets the bomb long before they'd have gotten one without help. loupgarous (talk) 23:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Ethel

"Julius Rosenberg (May 12, 1918 – June 19, 1953) and Ethel Elizabeth Rosenberg (September 28, 1915 – June 19, 1953) were American citizens who spied for the Soviet Union" --That's the lead sentence, but the article goes on to say that [at least according to the sources cited] the evidence strongly indicates that Ethel did no spying. Wik should not have self-contradictory articles. Kdammers (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

The lead is correct. The rest of the article has been COATRACKED to claim their innocence. Changes coming soon. DaltonCastle (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
The article should be neutral. Controversy continues. It would be better to say that they were American citizens who were executed for spying for the Soviet Union.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that stating they spied for the Soviets is not neutral. Jojalozzo (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Current wording of the lead reflects WP:WEIGHT of specialist historians' opinion about Ethel's culpability (and absolutely no RS disputes Julius's guilt any more): "In 2014, five historians who had published on the Rosenberg case wrote that Soviet documents show that "Ethel Rosenberg hid money and espionage paraphernalia for Julius, served as an intermediary for communications with his Soviet intelligence contacts, provided her personal evaluation of individuals Julius considered recruiting, and was present at meetings with his sources. They also demonstrate that Julius reported to the KGB that Ethel persuaded Ruth Greenglass to travel to New Mexico to recruit David as a spy."[6]" 73.114.32.138 (talk) 04:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
This is corroborated in Richard Rhodes' history of the development of thermonuclear weapons, Dark Sun, which describes how encrypted telegraphs from Soviet intelligence case officers in the US identified Ethel Rosenberg by her first name. This same set of decrypts led eventually to the arrest of Klaus Fuchs and the chain of events which caused Harry Gold's arrest, and that of David Greenglass, and the Greenglasses' testimony implicating both Rosenbergs in the courier network from Fuchs at Los Alamos to their NKVD handlers. Any language in the article stating their innocence must be balanced with the statements the Greenglasses made to the FBI, and the VENONA decrypts showing Ethel Rosenberg acted as a culpable accessory of her husband.
I just read the article. Under ==Later developments==, it presents four various narratives of Ethel Rosenberg's innocence of the charges, each occupying a separate paragraph, in parallel with a single paragraph on the Venona decrypts which indicate Ethel Rosenberg's guilt.
That in itself might be considered WP:UNDUE - the statements maintaining Ethel Rosenberg's innocence occupy five times the article space as the paragraph describing the Venona decrypts which showed the Soviets were aware of her activity on their behalf - which amounted to acting as a witting accessory of her husband Julius Rosenberg.
It's not a huge issue with me, personally. No one's covered with glory in this sorry episode but the men who discovered the Rosenberg's espionage, Meredith Gardner and Robert Lamphere. who did their jobs in good faith and honorably.
I would, however, endorse a consensus that we ought to have two subsections in ==Later developments==, one on statements affirming Ethel Rosenberg's innocence, one on the VENONA decrypts which affirm her guilt. It's important on contentious cases such as this that we're careful to be even-handed. I don't blame the Meeropols for wanting to have their mother exonerated, but amount of article space devoted to that in this article belongs in a separate main article (perhaps "Efforts to Exonerate Ethel Rosenberg"). loupgarous (talk) 02:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

What does this mean?

From the intro: Distilling this consensus, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz wrote that the Rosenbergs were "guilty - and framed"

What exactly does "guilty - and framed" mean anyhow? It sounds like wishy-washy legal speak that you would expect from a lawyer. If uttered by anyone else they would be called weasel words. Simply because it was uttered by some famous lawyer doesn't make it really material to the subject and here is sounds very vague to the point of worthless. Perhaps it can be removed. Zedshort (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

It means the Rosenbergs spied for the USSR (both of them, although Julius did most of the legwork) but that they were victims of prosecutorial misconduct. This is the position of most scholars who have gone into the question (i added cites to back up). It's not 'weasel words' it's a direct and pithy and accurate. NPalgan2 (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
And why is Alan Dershowitz quoted? Is he an expert in this case? Simply because he is a famous lawyer and even has credentials in some aspects of the law does not make him a useful person to quote on the subject. To label them both guilty and at the same time framed is precisly what I mean by weasel words...to have it both ways and very lawyerly. Zedshort (talk) 23:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Why not read Radosh and Milton's book? NPalgan2 (talk) 00:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
It's not having it both ways.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

It means what it seems to mean ... nothing. Those are just weasel words that should be removed. Dershowitz's opinion should be removed. It is not based on fact. It is merely an opinion, and not even a legal opinion. It has zero credibility in this context and adds nothing to this article, which SHOULD be based only on facts. As it is now, about half of it is based on opinion and conjecture, and therefore it isn't worth reading. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 08:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

My interpretation of Alan Dershowitz's remarks is that Judge Irving Kaufman improperly had had ex parte communications with Federal prosecutors and the FBI while presiding over the trial of the Rosenbergs, stating among other things, his desire to sentence the Rosenbergs to death. This and other judicial malfeasance and prosecutorial misconduct do, in fact, lie in Alan Dershowitz's field of competence, so reference to his statement that the Rosenbergs were "guilty - and framed" should remain in the article - it adds the commentary of someone with unique qualifications to make those comments - and Alan Dershowitz is notable enough to have his own article here on the basis of his activity as a legal scholar and a defense attorney. loupgarous (talk) 03:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Also, "guilty, but framed" are not WP:WEASEL words. "Many legal scholars agree the Rosenbergs were 'guilty, but framed'" would be a clear case of WP:WEASEL because the words identify no reliable source for that assessment.
The actual statement in the article is "Distilling this consensus, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz wrote that the Rosenbergs were "guilty – and framed."". It's a simple, declarative sentence properly attributed to Dershowitz, and within Professor Dershowitz's competence as a legal scholar at Harvard School of Law and experienced defense attorney to make. It is in the article with proper weight, and sums up the opinions of historians who have examined the case. loupgarous (talk) 03:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

NPV maintained?

I'm questioning the NPV of this article. The article seems quite slanted towards putting forward a largely discredited theory of the Rosenburg's innocence. Anyone familiar with this episode is aware that it was a celebrity cause of the far left for 20 years that the Rosenbergs were innocent. Eventually the evidence became overwhelming with the release of the Venona intercepts and so it was shelved.

It seems this article continues the tradition, now limited to trying to prove the innocence of Ethyl Rosenburg, alone. In fact as current written it might better by titled "The Innocence of Ethyl Rosenberg".

I note that many of the sources are from the Communist news paper "Sparticus" which can hardly be considered a reliable source in an article about Communist plots and spying.

Having a section on "controversy" and including some trimmed down information on this might be appropriate, but repurposing the article as ongoing propaganda is not.

I believe the article falls far short of maintaining a neutral point of view.

24.22.76.12 (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Spartacus Educational is not a Communist newspaper, though it does have a strange name. You are possibly confusing it with the Spartacus League or the Spartacist League (US).--Jack Upland (talk) 22:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Generally, this article complies with WP:NPOV. The section "Later Developments" has the minor issue that it has a single paragraph devoted to recently declassified Soviet spy agency telegrams identifying Ethel Rosenberg by name and establishing she performed acts to support her husband's espionage, and four paragraphs talking about Ethel Rosenberg's innocence.
This is not a huge POV issue for a reader who understands how to weigh emotional appeals (including the troubling statement that star witnesses in the Rosenberg's trial much later came forth to recant their statements about Ethel Rosenberg during her trial). However, less sophisticated readers may just count lines of text in our article and be persuaded of Ethel Rosenberg's innocence. At that point, our article loses encyclopedic value because walls of text about efforts to exonerate Ethel Rosenberg create WP:UNDUE issues.
Does anyone else think we ought to either
  • summarize the recent statements promoting Ethel Rosenberg's innocence in a paragraph or two (creating a separate main article in which the information as it appears in this article is presented in its present level of detail, along with her descendants' efforts to have her officially exonerated), or
  • expand the description of the VENONA decrypt evidence against Julius and Ethel Rosenberg so that is carries the same weight in the "Later Developments" section as the rest of the section?
If I see other editors support either of these options, I'll do a Request for Consensus on the one that gets the most support. loupgarous (talk) 04:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

"Julius and Ethel" (1983) is based on the Rosenberg case as seen through the Nobel prizewinner Bob Dylan's eyes" - WP:UNDUE?"

Under the heading Artistic representations, the sentence

"Julius and Ethel (1983) is based on the Rosenberg case as seen through the Nobel prizewinner Bob Dylan's eyes".

seems to place undue emphasis on Dylan's Nobel Prize for Literature, which nowhere cites the song "Julius and Ethel". The words "Nobel prizewinner" ought to be deleted from the sentence as WP:UNDUE.

In addition, the statement is unsourced, which makes it stand out from the rest of the section, in which sources are given for each preceding statement of fact. It might be better for the sentence to be deleted entirely until a reliable source can be found stating what is said. loupgarous (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. The whole line was poorly written. I've re-phrased it and added a citation. – Mformatt(So it goes.) 20:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were Jewish United States citizens..." in lede paragraph is WP:UNDUE

The lede paragraph of his article was modified on 20:49, 28 May 2018 to say

"Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were Jewish United States citizens... ".

.

The religious background of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg (both were from Jewish families) is already dealt with in the section "Early lives and education". If there is a notable connection between the religious and cultural milieu and the acts for which this couple became notable, it's not documented by a reliable source. Likewise, if either Julius or Ethel Rosenberg were observant Jews, that is also not documented by a reliable source.

Neither of the two ways it's generally understood that the Rosenbergs could be called "Jewish" is relevant to the acts for which the Rosenbergs became notable. Stating the fact in the article's lede paragraph is WP:UNDUE. I reverted the change accordingly. loupgarous (talk) 02:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, Jewish can be an ethnic description. No, neither of them were religiously observant: they were Communists. I agree this doesn't need to be in the lede.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

NPOV regarding the Venona project conclusions regarding their guilt and overall tone of article.

The article seems to state a "contentious" regarding the interpretation of the VENONA documents that I am not convinced exists. Yes, it may be true that a majority of historians feel the Venona project documents do in deed support the guilt of the Rosenberg's, the fact is that their has been some legitimate doubt raised about whether the documents have been properly translated or not by respectable sources. As such, I would rewrite the VENONA documents section to better reflect this. There is dispute by relevant individuals as to whether the VENONA documents are properly translated and as such, whether they do in deed support the long held belief that certain individuals, such as the Rosenberg's and Alger Hiss where indeed guilty of spying for the Soviets. Critics believe that while the documents do indeed show spying was going on, it's not clear that they real-life individuals accused of said spying are indeed the code-names mentioned in the document. The documents do not mention real names so it requires speculation to put the real names to the code-named people in the document. This article should reflect this reality. There is also the issue of whether the immorality of framing the Rosenberg's, even if they where guilty to some or all degree, makes their execution a grave injustice, as well as whether they was such they deserve the death penalty anyways. If any notable persons has argued their they believe the Rosenberg's role in the espionage did not constitute a death penalty level offense that that should be added to the article. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based off of what the reliable sources say. In this particular article, what serious (as opposed to popular) historians have written on the subject. Who are the historians who agree with you and disagree with the ones currently used in the article? NPalgan2 (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
@Notcharliechaplin The VENONA Soviet cable decrypts mentioning the Soviet agent named "Julius" were important, but also corroborated by the detective work of FBI special agent Robert Lamphere in tying Julius Rosenberg to the agent "Julius" in the decrypts - which also mentioned the agent was married to a woman named "Ethel". That part of the decrypts was very explicit and not prone to mistranslation - it was very specific about agent "Julius" and his wife "Ethel" - if anyone burned the Rosenbergs, it was their Soviet case handler. With the VENONA cables, the testimony of Ethel Rosenberg's brother and her sister-in-law, and the Soviet courier Harry Gold, there were no ambiguities regarding the Rosenbergs' guilt.
We already cite reliable sources questioning the morality of executing the Rosenbergs, up to and including their sons, the Meeropol brothers. We cite reliable sources who agree that the Rosenbergs were guilty. We also cite one of the most eminent legal scholars and defense counsels in the United States, Alan Dershowitz in the lede paragraph as saying the Rosenbergs were "guilty - and framed" of espionage. We also cite very reliable sources, the VENONA decrypts and the FBI investigators, as well as several historians who discussed the case together as supporting the guilty verdict in the Rosenbergs' case. You're welcome to present these other sources here and we'll examine them and form a consensus on whether to add what they have to say - but remember WP:DUE - these other sources would have to be a significant minority view - not a small minority, as Jimbo Wales says in the WP:DUE guideline. loupgarous (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Motives?

The current article is good at explaining the intel lost, and some of the impacts, but lacks a motive as to why the Rosenberg's did what they did. I'm sure early cold-war propaganda is untrustworthy, but time and evidence should present an answer to "why" they did it. 2600:6C48:7006:200:D84D:5A80:173:901D (talk) 03:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Money. 50.111.57.100 (talk) 08:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
They were Communists and supporters of the Soviet Union.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
The records, Soviet as well as FBI's and Harry Gold's own recollections, give a picture of the Rosenbergs as committed Communists who wanted to aid the Soviet Union by helping the Soviets gain the secrets of nuclear weapons (including Klaus Fuchs's and Edward Teller's early thermonuclear weapon concepts - which helped Sakharov conceive designs for Soviet thermonuclear weapons later). loupgarous (talk) 01:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Help! Vandalism in color print and formatting

Someone has vandalized this article, putting many sections in bold color font and messing up standard format. I can't figure out how to undo it.Parkwells (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Bias and unrelated information in this article?

It seems to me that this article has a very strange non-independent tone that isn't in line with the Wikipedia guidelines. Also, I'm concerned that this article contains an immense amount of unrelated information about other people, but does not accurately represent the historical debate and ongoing discussion about the Rosenbergs. I feel this page should be marked for major review. TheStranger616 (talk) 05:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


This is a strangely biased article, certainly in its introductory paragraph, where there's nothing resembling a neutral POV. A far more reasonable description would begin with stating that Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were tried, convicted, and executed for conspiracy to commit espionage. The rest of the article has sections that hew far more closely to a balanced assessment, alternating with tabloidy sections (for example, how to justify this? "The Rosenbergs' two sons, Michael and Robert Meeropol, spent years trying to prove the innocence of their parents. They were orphaned by the executions and were not adopted by any relatives."). Crimes stated as factual are well beyond what the evidence can be shown to support, and the writing does not reach a level that is even vaguely befitting an encyclopedia article. 

There is further, a whiff of anti-semitism in the deployment of the word Jewish (and although it was removed from the opening description of the Rosenbergs as Jewish Americans, that lives on in google). Why, for example does it say this: "Ethel and Julius Rosenberg were buried at Wellwood Cemetery, a Jewish cemetery in Pinelawn, New York"? or this: "the charges of antisemitism were widely believed abroad, but not among the vast majority in the United States." One might write paragraphs about that, but I'd like to see some evidence of the beliefs of a "vast majority"--and majority of whom?)

The only section relating to Korean war seems to be in quotation from the trial judge, but there should surely be some reference to the fraught state of US politics as a result of the US's fighting that grueling war during this time, with Communist China engaged in the fighting — all of which clearly provided a backdrop for the execution of people convicted of conspiracy to provide secrets to a wartime ally [during WWII], secrets which had already been provide by Klaus Fuchs. 

 The Venona intercepts are valuable and important evidence; books written by political critics of the Rosenbergs are far less so.  I won't go on, as I am sadly short of time, but I would like to support the request for major review to which I am appending this comment.

Actio (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

As you say, they were convicted of a crime, and the article reflects that. The article also indicates that there has been an ongoing campaign to exonerate them (or at least Ethel). I think there is nothing anti-semitic about describing them as Jews. They were ethnic Jews and identified as such, as shown by the fact they were buried in a Jewish cemetery. I think you will have trouble finding a source discussing the Rosenbergs that doesn't describe them as Jewish.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  1. ^ Dark Sun - The Making Of The Hydrogen Bomb by Richard Rhodes
  2. ^ Crankshaw, Edward (1970). Introduction, Khrushchev Remembers. Little, Brown and Company. p. ix.
  3. ^ McFadden, Robert (September 25, 1990). "Khrushchev on Rosenbergs: Stoking Old Embers". The New York Times. Retrieved August 13, 2008. Nearly four decades after Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed for conspiring to pass America's atomic bomb secrets to the Soviet Union, the case that has haunted scholars, historians and partisans of the left and the right has found a new witness: Nikita S. Khrushchev.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg/Archive_2&oldid=1079342904"