Revisionism of Rosenbergs, Atom Spies & McCarthyism. And: Victor Rothschild, Klaus Fuchs, and Others.

Manhattan Project, 'atom bomb', Cold War, spies, 'H-bomb', missile projects, 'neutron bomb', Vanunu, WMD lies

NEW - I've inserted here, in March 19 2015, a link to an archived version of Wikipedia on Klaus Fuchs. I found this piece searching for evidence that William Penney, the 'father of the British H bomb', was in fact a Jew.

NEW - I've inserted here, directly below, in Nov 11 2014, an interesting rediscovered piece dated 1.Jan.2006, titled The Madhouse Update: Spies and Bombs. The author is nuclear naive and has no idea that 'nuclear bombs' were subject to Jewish lies. However, the overwhelming Jewish presence and influence on politics and war is clear. Spellings unchanged.

[LINK to Revisionism of Rosenbergs, Atom Spies & McCarthyism below, bypassing SPIES AND BOMBS.]

In the following document all Jewish names will appear in red. [NB: Well, most; not Eisenhower, for example - Rerev]

There aren’t many who don’t know that US-Jewish spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed in 1953 for passing the secrets of the atomic bomb to Moscow.

Their convictions were assured when Ethel’s own brother, David Greenglass, a spy himself, testified against them. Also imprisoned at this time for their part in this conspiracy were Morton Sobel and Harry Gold, and, in Germany, Ruth Werner, who was convicted of helping Klaus Fuchs in the 1940s.

Werner, a Communist Party aparachik, born Ruth Kuczynski in 1907 Berlin, served nearly 10 years in a British prison for revealing U.S. and British atomic secrets to the Soviet Union.

Allen Weinstein
and Alexander Vasilye, in their 1999 offering, The Haunted Wood: Soviet Espionage in America. The Stalin Era, have this to say:
    "Bella Gold in the U.S. Commerce Department and Sonya Gold in the U.S. Treasury Department were among those working with Nathan Silvermaster, a U.S. Treasury Department official who was also working as a Soviet espionage 'group handler’.

Martha Dodd's partner was Soviet agent Boris Vinogradov. She never knew that her love affair with Vinogradov was being directed from Moscow. She eventually married wealthy Jewish-American businessman Alfred Stern, who also became involved in Soviet espionage activities. Stern was influential in setting up a music business, with a Jewish-American Hollywood producer, Boris Morros, as a front for Soviet espionage efforts.

Most Americans who spied for Moscow during the 1930s were antifascist admirers of the Soviet Union whose involvement in espionage had ideological roots. There were two noteworthy exceptions, one a U.S. Congressman (Samuel Dickstein) and the other a Hollywood producer. Both offered their services as Soviet agents for a price tag…

The Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission in that era was David Lilienthal

Soviet intelligence noted in 1944 that Robert Oppenheimer, head of America's nuclear weapon program was a ‘secret member’ of the American Communist Party".

In 1942, 16 year old Theodore Hall was accepted at Harvard.

The Harvard physics department suggested Hall when Washington requested four candidates to work as junior physicists at Los Alamos. He was interviewed for a position in October, 1943, when he had just turned 18. After the interview, Saville Sax, his roommate said:
    "If this turns out to be a weapon that is really awful, what you should do about it is tell the Russians."

In October 1944, Hall decided to do just that. In New York, he looked up Sax, they contacted the Russians and they were directed to their first Soviet control officer, Sergei Kurnakov.

After Sax returned to Harvard, Hall's new courier became Lone Petka Cohen, the daughter of Polish-Jewish immigrants. Cohen and her Jewish husband, Morris, also a Soviet intelligence recruit, ran Theodore Hall’s life as a spy for the next decade.

Hall abandoned the Soviet network in 1953. In 1962 he and his wife moved to the Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge.

In 1995, the National Security Agency released the decrypted November 1944 cable naming "Teodor Kholl" and "Savil Saks" as volunteer Soviet informants.

The Rosenbergs may have been executed in 1953, but, in a "whose the greatest traitor contest", the untouchable Theodore Hall would win hands down.

However, Hall knows that he will never be prosecuted for his crimes and he is blasé when it comes to giving interviews.

Here are some of the things he has said:
    "I had been thinking and reading about politics since an early age, and had seen that in a capitalistic society, economic depression could lead to fascism, aggression and war, as actually happened in Italy and Germany. So as I worked at Los Alamos and understood the destructive power of the atomic bomb, I asked myself what might happen if World War II was followed by a depression in the United States while it had an atomic monopoly?

In fact, I was very optimistic. I didn't believe that there would necessarily be a depression, or that a depression would necessarily lead to war. But it seemed to me that an American monopoly was dangerous and should be prevented…

I contemplated a brief encounter with a Soviet agent, just to inform them of the existence of the A-bomb project. I anticipated a very limited contact. With any luck it might easily have turned out that way, but it was not to be. Now I am castigated in some quarters as a traitor, although the Soviet Union at the time was not the enemy but the ally of the United States…

It has even been alleged that I 'changed the course of history.' Maybe the 'course of history,' if unchanged, could have led to atomic war in the past 50 years, for example the bomb might have been dropped on China in 1949 or the early 50s. Well, if I helped to prevent that, I accept the charge…

In 1944 I was 19 years old, immature, inexperienced and far too sure of myself. I recognise that I could easily have been wrong in my judgement of what was necessary, and that I was indeed mistaken about some things, in particular my view of the nature of the Soviet state. The world has moved on a lot since then and certainly so have I. But in essence, from the perspective of my 71 years, I still think that brash youth had the right end of the stick. I am no longer that person; but I am by no means ashamed of him."

So that’s alright then.

Jack Straw was Tony Blair's first Home Secretary.

In that post he refused to prosecute the Cold war spy, Melita Norwood.

Norwood just happens to have been an associate of his during his youthful 'protest' years.

You can rest assured that a Home Secretary who, did not see the point in prosecuting a woman whose traitorous actions led to the deaths of God knows how many British agents, would never agree to put a Jewish Communist like Hall on trial.

The unworthy Prof still lives in Cambridge, happily immune from any governmental sanction.

Robert Oppenheimer was the man that President Roosevelt chose to head the Manhattan Project, America’s attempt to build the atom bomb.

Oppenheimer was a Communist in the nineteen thirties and was a fervent supporter, as were so many Jews, of the Republicans in the Spanish civil war. Indeed, about one quarter of all of those who fought in the international brigades were Jewish.

On 16 July 1945, the first US test explosion of the atomic bomb was made at Alamogordo Air Base, south of Albuquerque, New Mexico, equal to some 18,600 tons of TNT.

Upon seeing the explosion Oppenheimer commented:
    "We knew the world would never be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried. Most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita... ‘I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.’ I suppose we all thought that, one way or another."

Describing the physicists' creation of the A-Bomb, Oppenheimer said:
    "In some sort of crude sense which no vulgarity, no humour, no overstatement can quite extinguish, the physicists have known sin; and this is a knowledge which they cannot lose."

In the 1988 book, The Making of the Atomic Bomb, Richard Rhodes also records Oppenheimer as having said:
    "I had had a continuing, smouldering fury about the treatment of the Jews in Germany."

Rhodes adds:
    "Robert Oppenheimerr, Enrico Fermi and Leo Szilard were the three principal scientists involved with the creation of the atomic bomb. Oppenheimer and Szilard were Jewish, Fermi was not but his wife was. The army's head of atomic bomb security, Leslie Richard Groves, thought Szilard was: '… the kind of man that any employer would have fired as a troublemaker'…

Groves seems to attributed Szilard's brashness to the fact that he was a Jew."

Groves also suspected Szilard of being a spy and had him put under surveillance.

In 1950, President Truman appointed the Jewess, Anna Rosenberg, as the US Assistant Secretary of Defence.

In the mid 40s it was Rosenberg who had been in charge of the hiring of 10,000 people for the Manhattan Project. Those she recruited included the Rosenbergs, David Greenglass, Morton Sobel, Harry Gold, Theodore Hall and Klaus Fuchs.

Sidney Fields, writing in the 15 November 1950 edition of The New Yorker, described Rosenberg thus:
    "Tomorrow, Mrs. Anna Rosenberg assumes her duties as Assistant Secretary of Defence, in charge of the nation’s manpower. She will be in charge of 115 US Government Agencies."

In 1938, Lise Meitner was dismissed from her university post in Germany.

She moved to Sweden and, in 1939, wrote a paper on nuclear fission with her nephew, Otto Frisch,where they argued that by splitting the atom it was possible to use a few pounds of uranium to create the destructive power of many thousands of pounds of dynamite.

On 2 August 1939, Albert Einstein and two other Jewish scientists, Eugene Wigner and the aforementioned Leo Szilard, all of whom had previously fled Germany, wrote a letter to President Roosevelt concerning the developments that had been taking place in nuclear physics.

It said in part:
    "It may become possible to set up a nuclear chain reaction in a large mass of uranium, by which vast amounts of power and large quantities of new radium-like elements would be generated. Now it appears almost certain that this could be achieved in the immediate future.

This new phenomenon would also lead to the construction of bombs, and it is conceivable - though much less certain - that extremely powerful bombs of a new type may thus be constructed. A single bomb of this type, carried by boat or exploded in a port, might well destroy the whole port together with some of the surrounding territory."

Roosevelt responded immediately by creating a scientific advisory committee and, in 1942 the Manhattan Engineer Project was set up in the United States. By the following year, the leading Jewish scientists: Edward Teller, David Bohm, Rudolf Peirels, Felix Bloch, Szilard and Wigner had joined Oppenheimer to work on the invention of the greatest weapon of mass destruction the world had ever known.

Two years later their efforts were rewarded when the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasarki were obliterated in an instant.

More than 150,000 people, most of them women and children, were killed as a result.

On page 269 of Day One: Before Hiroshima and After, Peter Wyden informs us that:
    "There had been twenty-three US Prisoners of War on Hiroshima when the bomb was dropped."

On 31 July 1945, a message was received by the US War Department from HQ, US Strategic Air Forces, Guam.

The message read:
    "Reports prisoner of war sources, not verified by photos, given location of Allied prisoner of war camp one mile north of center of city of Nagasaki. Does this influence the choice of this target for initial Centerboard operation? Request immediate reply."

The US War Department’s reply was:
    "Targets previously assigned for Centerboard remain unchanged."

After the inhabitants of Hiroshima were crisped, President Truman, who ordered the bomb to be dropped, said:
    "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as was possible, the killing of civilians."

The 100,000 plus killed in Hiroshima were almost all civilians.

In July, 1946, the US Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that Japan would have surrendered:
    "Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to December 31 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

Two days after the destruction of Hiroshima and the day before the Nagasaki bomb, former American President, Herbert Hoover said:
    "The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul."

Dwight D. Eisenhower, at that time Allied Commander in Europe, and future US President said:
    "The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

In chapter 10 of the 1949 history, Fear, War and the Bomb, Lord Patrick Maynard Stewart Blackett, a Nobel prize winning nuclear physicist, former Naval Officer and advisor to Winston Churchill during WWII, said the dropping of the atomic bomb was:
    "... the first major operation of the cold diplomatic war with Russia… the first shot fired in an American Cold war with Russia… The bombs were really aimed at the Russians, although it was the Japanese who did the dying."

History usually describes Klaus Fuchs as a 'British' spy, but, in fact, he was born and raised in Germany.

A member of the German Communist Party, he fled the country and made for Scotland after the Nazis came to power in 1933.

During WWII, he worked at Birmingham University under the Jew, Rudof Peierls, and, in 1943, he went to the US where he began working on the bomb.

After the war Fuchs returned to England where he became head of the physics department of the British nuclear research centre at Harwell.

In September 1945, a KGB intelligence officer based in Canada, defected to the West claiming he had evidence of an Soviet spy ring based in Britain.

Igor Gouzenko's testimony led to the arrest of 22 homegrown and 15 Soviet spies in Canada. Fuchs confessed and, in 1950, he was sentenced to 14 years in prison.

In 1961, George Blake was sentenced to 42 years in prison for spying for the Soviet Union.

In 1966, he escaped from Wormwood Scrubs and was spirited out of the country, ending up in Moscow, where he was to spend the rest of his life.

In an interview, Blake said:
    "My father was a Spanish Jew who came from the Middle East or the Near East… My father had a sister in Cairo, who was a wife of a very rich banker. They said they would take me and look after my education…

At the age of thirteen I went to Cairo, and lived with my uncle and aunt, in a very large house, and there I met my two cousins, who were ten years older than I was. Both of them had very decided left wing views… the younger of my two cousins… had a great influence on me. He was, by that time, a Communist and he talked a lot with me. Of course, his views had a great influence on me."

Blake’s treachery led to the disappearance and probable execution of 42 Soviet agents who were working for the British.

Victor Rothschild, who had once been a governor of the BBC, was a close friend and adviser of Margaret Thatcher at a time when the Conservative government were being harassed by that organisation.

After he was appointed Chair of the Board of govenors of the BBC in 1986, Marmaduke Hussey was summoned to the HQ of N. M. Rothschild and Sons in St. Swithin's Lane, for a conference withVictor Rothschild.

Hussey described the conversation thus:
    "Victor Rothschild I knew because he was head of the Downing Street Think Tank. If he wanted to enquire about the media, he summoned me. I would then be grilled by him for two hours, with my replies taken down by my young brother-in-law, William Waldegrave.

Pretty intimidating.

Victor invited me to an excellent lunch at the family bank. The house wine was delicious, but no mention of the BBC. So with the cheese I said:
    'Now what about the BBC, Victor'?"

What follows is a transcript of the Rothschild/Hussey conversation, as described by Hussey:
: "How much power have you got?"
    HUSSEY: "I'm not sure."
    ROTHSCHILD: "Can you fire the Director-General?"
    HUSSEY: "I think so."
    ROTHSCHILD: "Well, that's all that needs to be said, isn't it?"

"Typical of Victor, the basic problem as always is power. If you have it, use it. How you use it is the problem. Having considered the constitution it was clear to me that the governors, if they chose to exercise it, had tremendous power."

The director-general, Alasdair Milne, was sacked shortly afterwards.

'Friend and adviser' to Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s, between 1964 and 1976, Rothschild was also a 'friend and adviser' to both Harold Wilson and Ted Heath.

As the economist and historian, Webster G. Tarpley, says in his illuminating book,August 15 1971: Collapse Of The Bretton Woods Monetary System:
    "In 1964, the era of Tory domination was ended by a new Labour Party government under Harold Wilson, a former communist activist of the 1930's who owed his career to Lord Victor Rothschild of the notorious banking family."

In 1986, rumours were rife that Rothschild was the "fifth man" in the Burgess, Maclean, Philby, Blunt spy ring. He wrote a letter to the editor of the Daily Telegraph, in which he demanded that the head of M15 issue a public confirmation of his innocence.

'For now', he stated, 'I shall not address any other public statement to the press'."

What no writs?

No prosecution for libel?

The following day, Margaret Thatcher issued a press release of her own which said:
    "We have no evidence that he was ever a Soviet agent."

Not much of a furious denial of Rothschild treachery there, then.

In his 1994 book, The Fifth Man, Australian journalist, Roland Perry, revealed that the 'fifth spy' was not the previously exposed John Cairncross but Rothschild.

"Rothschild was camouflaged as the Fifth Man by virtue of his powerful position in the Establishment.

The vast wealth of his banking dynasty embedded him in the power elite more than the other members of the Ring of Five. It was a perfect cover and served to shield him. He seemed the epitome of the ruling class in twentieth century Britain, and therefore the least likely to be a traitor...

Rothschild was more loyal to his Jewish heritage than anything English…

Rothschild supplied espionage material to the Russians on work in everything from nuclear weaponry and radar to germ warfare developments at the biological center."

On 14 April 2003, The New Statesman published a critique of Kenneth Rose’s biography, Elusive Rothschild: the life of Victor, Third Baron, which informed us that:
    "Victor Rothschild … argued in 1944 that British and American military secrets ought to be given to the Russians… he knew Guy Burgess and Anthony Blunt rather more closely than he liked to admit in later years. Rupert Allason, the former Conservative MP, otherwise known as the spy writer Nigel West, claimed that he was a Communist Party member at Cambridge in the 1930s…

The truth is that Rothschild was as much a part of the grubby, reactionary, self-glorifying world of the security services as Allason, Wright or Pincher. There are no blacks and whites in that world, only dirty, duplicitous greys. In the twilight of his life, says John le Carre, the good double agent can turn to his masters and say: 'I have served you both well.'

When faced with the potential revelation of half-truths, their instinct is not to reveal the whole truth, but to manoeuvre, as Rothschild did with Wright and Pincher, to try to ensure that it is their half-truth that gets told. The distinction between spies and agents provocateurs is a fine one…

The heir to the huge fortune of the British branch of the Rothschilds, Victor Rothschild was fabulously rich all his life without the inconvenience of having to earn money. He was a scientist of some distinction before the Second World War, and a valued M15 officer during it (and close to it all his life).

From 1958 to 1970 he was a senior executive with Shell. In 1970, the new Prime Minister, Edward Heath, made him the head of the Central Policy Review Staff, a government think-tank eventually abolished by Margaret Thatcher. In 1975, at the age of 64, he finally consented to join the family firm of N MRothschild and Sons, in the role of Chairman."

Before and during WWII, Victor Rothschild had also been a 'close friend and adviser' of Winston Churchill.

Indeed, immediately upon taking office in 1940, Churchill appointed him to put the notorious 'Regulation 18b' into effect. This draconian law allowed for the imprisonment, without trial, of anyone Churchill and Rothschild suspected of opposing the war.

Thus, Oswald Mosely, his wife Diana Mitford and quite a few MPs and high ranking military men who had counselled against war were summarily silenced and the destruction of the old world order and more than 54 million lives in the next four years could take place without hindrance or critical scrutiny.

In the 11 November 2001, issue of The Observer, we are told:
    "Anthony Blunt … was recruited to recruit others and signed up a number of undergraduates with left-wing sympathies [presumably this means Jewish 'communism' and mass murder, not traditional British socialism - Rerev] as agents….In the late 1930s he lost contact with Moscow and concentrated on… his editorial work for the Warburg Institute… In the war he was recruited to MI5…. It was then that he was again approached by Moscow to hand over secrets, which he did conscientiously…

After the war, he slipped effortlessly into all the highest places in the art establishment, with a flat on the top floor of the Courtauld Institute and a friendship with the Queen, a distant cousin. There is no evidence that he ever felt the faintest twinge of guilt, rather the contrary, but he did fuss endlessly that he might be found out… He was certainly on friendly terms with Sir Dick White, the Head of MI5 and MI6, in the 1960s, and they used to spend Christmas together with Victor Rothschild in Rothschild's house in Cambridge."

Blunt and Philby claimed that the Soviet agent who recruited themselves, Burgess, Maclean and Cairncross was an eastern European named Otto. Most historians believe that Otto was, in fact, a Jewish intellectual who operated out of the Soviet Embassy in London named Samuel Borisovich Cahan.

In 1985, a US Navy intelligence analyst named Jonathan Pollard was arrested, charged with passing nuclear secrets to Israel, found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Pollard is Jewish.

In August 2004, the Israeli government denied reports that a senior US defence department official had spied for Israel.

The spy was said to be 'linked' to Douglas Feith, a key adviser to Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and, along with Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, one of the leading architects of the war in Iraq.

Feith is Jewish.

Of the Burgess and MacLean spy ring, Anthony Blunt and Guy Burgess were homosexual.

Kim Philby was bi-sexual and married to a Jewess.

They didn't tell you that in school, now did they?

Revisionism of Rosenbergs, Atom Spies & McCarthyism

Postby rerevisionist » 10 Dec 2011 01:06

Revisionism and the Rosenberg-Sobell Case and McCarthyism - and the Truth Behind 'Atom Spy' Scares

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were tried in March 1951 and executed in June 1953. Others involved were (from Wikipedia; doubtless there were others) -- 'Ethel's brother, David Greenglass, who supplied documents to Julius from Los Alamos ... Harry Gold ... the courier for Greenglass and the British [sic] scientist, Klaus Fuchs. Morton Sobell ... was tried with the Rosenbergs...' Other names included ' ... Semyon Semenov ... Bernard Schuster ... Earl Browder ... Feklisov ... Jacob Golo ... Joel Barr, Alfred Sarant, William Perl ...'

The actual secrets seem to have included many military projects; probably the whole scheme was a set-up, since Jews supplied the Soviet Union with virtually all of their technology. A Rothschild was actually permitted access by the British to all their research secrets. There had to be a pretence of spying - as with Pollard at the present day - as a cover to pretend the information wasn't supplied by Jews. And they had to pretend it was one issue only, nuclear weapons.

Various books were written after the execution, mostly or all by Jews - William A Reuben, The Atom Spy Hoax (New York: Action Books 1954 - the year following the execution). Then John Wexley's The Judgment of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg (New York: Cameron and Kahn, 1955). There must have been a parallel campaign in Time, Life, The New York Times and all the other wearying media garbage inflicted on Americans.

Malcolm B Sharp (introduced by H C Urey, another Jewish scientist or quasi-scientist). Was Justice Done? was published in 1956 (New York: Monthly Review Press).

I quote below a review of Sharp's book published in 1957 - very probably the other two were too sensational for Russell. I quote it, because the whole Jewish issue was unknown or ignored by Russell. He always spoke of 'Russia', not the USSR, as though it was a purely nationalistic country. He speaks of 'Communists' with a capital C, as though it's a religion with honest true believers - he stated there were only a handful of Communists in the USA! He appeared to have no real idea of international interests, notably finance. However, it's possible he knew this, but suppressed it - it's impossible to be certain as his papers have been heavily edited by Jews, who are extremely likely to have buried anything compromising.

I've emboldened a couple of passages which seem highly dubious, but otherwise it's uncommented.

Justice or Injustice? by Bertrand Russell, published 1957 in the University of Chicago Law Review---
. . . Professor Malcolm P. Sharp has performed a great public service by his book Was Justice Done? which examines the Rosenberg-Sobell case from the point of view of the evidence presented and its credibility or the reverse. The case is one of those arousing such strong passions on the one side or on the other that few people have the intellectual self-control required for a calm appraisal. Professor Sharp has this self-control. He is not and has never been a Communist. He is a man trained in the estimation of evidence and in the legal relevance of facts. He was concerned in the last stages of the Rosenberg case, but only because, as a lawyer, he came to the conclusion that justice was not being done. Like most people, he had been inclined to accept the verdict of the Court, and it was reluctantly that he was compelled to change this opinion. I have not found in his book any evidence of bias on his part. So far as I am able to judge, he gives due weight to all the evidence that was offered; and when he rejects or questions any piece of evidence, he does so either on grounds of internal inconsistency or because the witness concerned had powerful motives for departing from the truth. His book is as admirable in form as it is in substance, and in both respects deserves the highest praise.
. . . It may be thought an impertinence for one who is not an American to find fault with a decision of the American Courts. As to this, I should wish to say that every country, and indeed every social group, is liable, from time to time, to an attack of mass hysteria. England had such an attack at the time of the Popish Plot and was on the verge of it in the early months of 1918. France had two very fierce attacks of mass hysteria, the first in 1793, and the second at the time of the Dreyfus case, but, at the end of the second, recovered sanity and brought Dreyfus back from Devil's Island. The Rosenbergs cannot be brought back.
. . . Such attacks are apt to occur whenever a Community is exposed to intense fear, and are apt to take completely irrational forms, as, for example, when the Japanese punished Koreans for the Tokyo earthquake. Mass hysteria is one of the most disastrous of human propensities and, unfortunately, it is not confined to this or that nation. In regretting and combatting any one of its manifestations, it is important to remember that no one nation is specially prone to this form of irrational behaviour.
. . . In reading Professor Sharp's record, if one is not caught in the web of terror that enmeshed police and judge and jury and witnesses, all alike, the inability of the participants to form calm judgments is quite undeniable. It seems to be an accepted maxim that a known perjurer is always to be believed if he says what the police wish him to say; but if he says anything else, one may remember his addiction to perjury. It seems to be also an accepted maxim that, if a man known to have committed a crime makes a Statement, after having been told by the police that if he makes it he will escape punishment or have a light sentence, what he says, under the influence of such pressure, is bound to be gospel truth. When, on the other hand, the Rosenbergs, down to the very day of their execution, were told that their lives would be spared if they would incriminate others, and when they totally refused to do so, this is not regarded as evidence of courageous innocence, but as a shocking example of Communist cunning.
. . . The conviction of the Rosenbergs depended mainly upon the evidence of the Greenglasses. Greenglass was Mrs. Rosenberg's brother and modelled his conduct upon that of Cain. As one critic quoted by Professor Sharp justly states: "The story of David Greenglass in so obviously false in so many material respects that he is entitled to no credence; a dog should not be put to death upon the strength of his testimony" (p. 94, quoting Mr. Stephen A. Love of the Chicago Bar, in a speech of 3 May 1953). If his testimony is accepted, he was as liable to the death penalty as the Rosenbergs were; but in view of his denunciation of them, he received only a fifteen-year sentence and Mrs. Greenglass was not indicted. Professor Sharp deals at length, and very convincingly, with the console table which derived its importance from the fact that it throws doubt upon the Greenglasses' veracity and from the circumstance that new facts about it were discovered shortly before the Rosenbergs' execution and were made the basis of an application for a new trial. This application was hastily rejected on frivolous grounds after the judge had refused to see the console table which the defence asserted to be the one in question.
. . . Judge Kaufman injected prejudice into the proceedings by attributing to the Rosenbergs all the misfortunes of the Korean War. He seems to have thought, as most non-scientific Americans apparently did, that there was something which could be called the "secret" of the bomb, which was thought of as analogous to a magic formula in medieval necromancy. He led the Jury to believe that the Rosenbergs has given this "secret" to the Russians and had thereby emboldened them to cause the North Korean invasion of South Korea. This whole conception is quite wide of the mark. There was very much less that was secret about the atom bomb after Hiroshima that was popularly supposed.
. . . There are curious inconsistencies, which do not seem to have struck those who were concerned in the trial. For example, witnesses stated with great emphasis that a Communist spy in telephoning would seldom give his real name, but would substitute a code name that had been assigned to him. Nevertheless, great play is made with the assertion that somebody who telephoned gave his name as "Julius," and therefore must have been Rosenberg.
. . . The evidence against Sobell who got a thirty-year sentence, was even more flimsy than the evidence against the Rosenbergs. Judge Kaufman directed the Jury that, if they did not believe the testimony of Elitcher, they must acquit Sobell. Elitcher had stated on oath that he had never been a Communist, which the police knew to be false. He therefore knew himself to be liable to prosecution for perjury. He denounced Sobell, who had been his best friend, and he has never been prosecuted.
. . . It is commonly alleged by those who consider that the guilt of the Rosenbergs and Sobell was established that the case was reviewed by the Supreme Court. This is not so. The Supreme Court was asked to review the case, but refused.
. . . Apart from the question of whether the verdicts were right, there is something utterly horrifying about the indecent haste shown by all the authorities in the last stages of the case. The application for a new trial on the basis of new evidence was rejected before there had been time to examine the new evidence. Legal proceedings did not terminate until two o'clock on 19 June 1953.
. . . An appeal to the President for clemency cannot be made until the legal proceedings are concluded. Counsel for the Rosenbergs endeavoured to place an appeal for clemency before the President. They met with every kind of obstacle from red tape and do not know to this day what final consideration was given to the case by the President. The execution had been fixed for eleven p.m. on that same day, but when it was pointed out that this would be on the Jewish Sabbath, the time of execution was advanced to be just before sunset on that same day. Up to the last moment, the Rosenbergs knew they could escape the death penalty by breaking the Ninth Commandment. They refused, and died. Those who had not refused survived.
. . . Sobell, unlike the Rosenbergs, though he refused to bear false witness, is still alive and can still be helped. He is in Alcatraz prison, which is supposed to be for recalcitrant criminals, though the only way in which he has shown himself recalcitrant is in his refusal to denounce others as his accomplices in the crimes which he has not committed. It may still be hoped that there are enough people in the United States who hold that a man should not be punished for a crime unless there is convincing evidence that he has committed it to secure by means of agitation that Sobell is granted a new trial. I cannot believe that in the somewhat calmer atmosphere of the present time he would again be convicted.
. . . Professor Urey contributes to the book an introduction which is valuable not only because of the scientific accuracy of his judgement but also because, as a distinguished nuclear physicist, he is in a better position than most others to judge as to what was possible in the way of espionage. He deserves very high praise as one of the first non-Communists to question the justice of the verdicts.
. . . The miscarriage of justice, as I firmly believe it to have been, in the Rosenberg-Sobell case is analogous to such cases as the Sacco-Vanzetti case and, as I remarked before, the Dreyfus case. One is driven to ask: is there anything that can be done to prevent innocent people from unjustly suffering in times of national excitement? At such times, judge and Jury alike are incapable of calm judgement. The crimes alleged are so heinous that some of the horror of the crime spills over on the accused before he has been proved guilty. Witnesses who take the unpopular side incur odium and are liable to be dismissed from their employment; whereas those who take the popular side are acclaimed as heroes.
. . . The case of Matusow is interesting in this connection. By his own account, he hired himself out to commit perjury for money. But after a time he repented and said that he had been guilty of perjury. As soon as repentance led him to give up perjury, he was prosecuted for perjury. People who have been Communists and have ceased to be so have a lucrative and popular career before them if they are willing to invent stories that the police like to hear; but, if not, they suffer all the disabilities to which ordinary ex-Communists are exposed.
. . . I am not a lawyer and I do not know on what principles lawyers decide as to the credibility of witnesses; but from the point of view of common sense, it seems to me that if a man who is known to have committed perjury will derive great advantages if he says A and suffer severe penalties if he says B, one cannot feel quite sure that he is speaking the truth when he says A. And, speaking still from a layman's point of view, I should have thought that, if you are not quite sure, you ought not to inflict the death penalty. It is commonly said by those who derive comfort from soothing platitudes that it is better that ninety-nine guilty men should escape than that one innocent man should be punished. More or less inadvertently, we have allowed our institutions to develop so as to favour the exact opposite of this result. To prove guilt, we have a vast public machine of policemen and detectives and public prosecutors, all supported by public money; whereas the proof of innocence is left to private people at their own expense and without any of the facilities that belong to the police. People have not realised adequately that what happens in court has required long preparation and great skill in deciding how to present the material. All this preparatory work is arranged on the assumption that the public has an interest in proving guilt but not in proving innocence.
. . . It is customary among Western nations to speak with horror of the Police State, quoting the two awful examples of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. The examples are truly awful. When the Russians were engaged in acquiring power over the countries that became satellites, it was always the control of the police that they sought first. We do not wish the police forces in our countries to have the kind of power that they have in Communist countries, but I think we are not always sufficiently careful to avoid Steps in that direction. It is not the business of the police to insure justice. That is, or should be, the business of the courts. It is the business of the police to secure convictions, and unless their virtue is almost superhuman, they will not invariably be careful to insure that it is only against the guilty, that they seek convictions. A state of affairs easily arises where those who belong to some unpopular party or who for some reason are opposed to the government come to feel terror in the thought that the police may at any moment accuse them of some crime and, even if they are lucky enough to be acquitted, they probably suffer financial ruin owing to the suspicion which has fallen upon them. Where this happens, there is no true freedom; and it is pretty sure to happen wherever police power is unchecked. The police in Western nations have not shown themselves very adept at catching genuine political offenders. When there were bomb outrages at the end of the First World War, none of the perpetrators were caught, but two innocent men were put to death and another innocent man, after being sentenced to death, had his punishment commuted to penal servitude for life. This caused the ignorant public to believe in the efficiency of the police. Professor Sharp's book deals with a more recent example of the same pattern. I hope it may awaken the public to the realisation that to be accused is not necessarily to be guilty.
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 1056
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 11:40

Return to Nuke Scams Past: Nuclear Plans & Conspiracies & Funds, Wars, Hoax Maintenance

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest