Exoneration: The Trial of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and Morton Sobell Prosecutorial Deceptions, Suborned Perjuries, Anti-Semitism
Apparently these people didn’t get the memo: the Rosenbergs were guilty as all hell, Morton Sobell has himself admitted he was a Soviet spy, and the judge in the Rosenbergs’ case was Jewish.
As cofounders of the National Committee to Secure Justice in the Rosenberg Case, the authors led the failed fight to save Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. … Even with recent revelations that—counter to the beliefs of the Rosenbergs’ supporters—Julius did spy for Russia, the Almans manage to demonstrate convincingly that the couple was not killed for what Julius actually did but for an improperly added charge of treason. They paint a powerful picture of prosecutorial and judicial abuse, and describe the chilling atmosphere of government-inspired fear in the 1950s that prevented many decent people from speaking up.
Now for my part, I’d have thought that the National Committee to Secure Justice in the Rosenberg Case would have consisted of electricians and electrical engineers, who did yeoman’s work in this connection in securing justices for the Rosenbergs, but apparently I’m mistaken and it’s a Communist front organization.
But let’s look at this blurb in detail. “The couple was not killed.” Killed? Someone shot in a drive-by is killed. How about “executed?” Or “punished?”
“Manage to demonstrate convincingly.” A wise man once told me to look hard at the modifiers – adjectives and adverbs – because that’s where the emotional impact is loaded. The “convincingly” here seems gratuitous, and more than a little defensive.
“Prevented many decent people from speaking up.” Is this an implicit admission that Communists are not decent people? If so, I applaud this outbreak of common sense. Otherwise, it is an attempt to provide cover to apparatchiks agitating for a hard left agenda.
“… the couple was not killed for what Julius actually did but for an improperly added charge of treason.” How very Clintonian. Bill Clinton nods in approval at this attempt to try to define away the crime through strained linguistic parsing and resulting sophistry.
But I have to love this comment, as it’s a classic of the revisionist history genre:
Too often, innocence is proven after death. “Exoneration: The Trial of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and Morton Sobell” looks at the infamous spy case of the Rosenbergs, a couple that was accused of selling secrets to the Soviet Union back in the 1950s. Fifty years later, new evidence emerges that brings a different light to the Rosenbergs and their actions. For those intrigued by the inner workings of the cold war and how politics conflicted with justice, “Exoneration” is a fascinating and solidly recommended read.
Newsflash, Bucky: the Rosenbergs were guilty as sin. Their actions could have cost a lot of Americans their lives. Indeed, arguably, they did cost a lot of Americans their lives, since the Stalin probably would not have sanctioned North Korea’s attack on South Korea if the USSR hadn’t had the bomb. They deserved every volt.
I particularly like this phrase…”an improperly added charge of treason.”
Really? Improper? They spied for the Soviet Union. That sure sounds like treason to me.
After the fall of the Soviet Union in ’91, many of the archives of the KGB were opened and Oleg Kalugin, a top agent in the organization confirmed a) that Joe McCarthy was 100% accurate in his charge of Communist infiltration of the US State Dept. and b) that the Rosenbergs were active, willing spies for Stalin.
But you are correct about the Left. Look at how US history has been turned on its head vis a vis the Confederacy, the civil rights movement and the history of the Democrat party. Then again, when you have the entire media and 99.99% of academia on your side, it’s as easy as borscht.