The Brother: The Untold Story of the Rosenberg Case

.....but that doesn't change the truth of what he said. A virtual infinity of books have been written about the Rosenberg case, most by people having an agenda, one way or the other; this is one of the best, and most important...further, Sam Roberts does not have an agenda. I was only 6 when the Rosenbergs went to the chair, but I remember it well. I have never doubted their guilt; I have little doubt that my Dad would have pulled the switch. Numerous authors have proclaimed the Rosenbergs innocent victims of a government frame-up; these are often Communists, or at least leftists, who base their assertions on the belief that the principle prosecution witnesses, David and Ruth Greenglass, were lowlifes. This fine book is the story of David Greenglass, brother of Ethel Rosenberg, atomic spy, soldier turned traitor, a man who turned government witness and "sent his sister to the chair". Many know the basic story...Ethel and David grew up in a poor family, and embraced Communism while young. Ethel married fellow Communist Julius Rosenberg, who strongly desired to aid the Soviet Union. During WWII, David was drafted into the Army, and worked in the machine shop at Los Alamos, where the atomic bomb was being developed...Julius found out about David's assignment, and recruited him to steal secrets for Russia...David passed the information to spy courier Harry Gold...after the war, the house of cards eventually fell...scientist Klaus Fuchs was caught...that led to Harry Gold........... When arrested in 1950, David and his wife Ruth gave up Julius and Ethel; there was certainly no desire to "send them to the chair". They figured that the Rosenbergs would confess, as others had done, and the chain would go on. But, the Rosenbergs never confessed; apart from Morton Sobell, the rest of their spy ring remained free. They were tried, convicted, and, after a two year legal fight, executed. Sobell [who was not involved in atomic espionage] got 30 years, served 18 of them, and has never repented. Greenglass got 15 years, served 9, and disappeared behind an assumed name into a city somewhere in the northeast. He is now 85, and has expressed no regrets about being a government witness, still angry that the Rosenbergs got them into the mess. Ruth was never indicted...... There have been many charges of frame-up, and misconduct, on the part of the government. Certainly, there were improprieties; prosecutor Alexander Saypol wanted to be a Judge, and he was. Judge Irving Kaufman would have given his front seat in the Synagogue for the Supreme Court; despite a long, honored, career as an appeals judge, he never got it. But, none of this changes the Rosenbergs' guilt...in fact, the government had evidence it didn't dare use...the Venona intercepts implicated the Rosenbergs, and others, but use of them in open court would have let the Soviets know we had broken the code. The FBI even had an informant in Emmanuel Bloch's office while he was preparing the Rosenbergs' app

When thinking of David Greenglass and the hatred his actions have invoked for half a century it seems reasonable to ask, as the author does, why is David Kaczynski who turned in his brother, better known as the Unabomber, not reviled? He knew his brother was likely to receive capital punishment for what he had done. Or how about Barbara Walker who turned in her husband, which then led to her son, being convicted as well, for being willing suppliers of information to the USSR. The Walkers are hardly serving time in a so-called, "Club Fed", and last I read the Unabomber will either die in prison of old age or execution.The title of Sam Roberts' book is certainly accurate if incomplete. Testimony by David Greenglass absolutely placed his sister and brother in law in the midst of a scenario that would guaranty their conviction. But to be fair, his wife Ruth did not do the Rosenbergs any favors when she testified, and the Rosenbergs and their defense council made decisions that ensured their conviction as well.Greenglass made it very clear that his wife came before anyone in his thinking, including his mother and father. When he came under FBI scrutiny it can hardly be considered a surprise that he either told some things that were true, or when faced with an alternative, he would place the blame on his sister or brother in law. The Rosenbergs did virtually nothing to exonerate themselves or cooperate to ensure they would not be subject to capital punishment. As both husband and wife took the stand and then exercised their right to not answer questions, which may have served to self-incriminate them, when from a practical standpoint answering yes would have done no more harm. It may be a constitutional protection, but I think juries take it as an admission of guilt. And what type of verdict could be expected when the defense lawyer, while arguing that the information at issue was not important, then simultaneously asks that it be impounded to protect its confidentiality?Ethel Rosenberg probably did not deserve the punishment she received. I can only argue probably, for why would a woman who is innocent with 2 young children take positions, which were stated as first, final, and never subject to change? And how could a husband let his wife follow him to the chair? Many of the players in this issue were portrayed as young, idealistic, and foolish. I cannot accept that either of the Rosenbergs believed they would be found innocent. And further, rolling the dice on the sentence Ethel would receive in the midst of a country coming out of one war and was then engaged in Korea against the "ally" they helped, seems to be stupidity not a calculated risk.The entire furor over David Greenglass and the degree to which he lied is of great interest to me, as people lying and making deals to mitigate their own punishment is hardly unique. Even if he believed with 100 percent certainty that his sister would be executed it was a choice he never even pondered, he and h

Most of the reviewers of this book have commented on the fact that Greenglass was paid for the interviews that the book is based on. But I wonder if any of them read closely enough to notice that the payment is in the form of a share in the profits of the book. [Page 472: "He agreed to cooperate fully on a book in return for a share of the proceeds."] Thus, a portion of every dollar you spend on this book goes to David Greenglass.That being the case, it might be better to read it at the library! :)

If Bernard Malamud wrote history, he would have sounded like Sam Roberts. With David Greenglass at the center of this version of the oft-told tale of the theft of our atomic secrets during World War II, Roberts writes an engaging and wonderfully droll book that I had trouble putting down. New revelations from the Venona decryptions as well as the NKGB archives and othe declassified documents Roberts sought and found mesh well with the story of very ordinary people from the Lower East Side committing extraordinary crimes that shook the nation.

Sam Roberts kicks off what should be a series of 50th anniversary second and third looks at the Rosenberg Trial. His book opens interesting and helpful new pages on the Rosenberg saga. "The Brother" invites further review of, not the guilt or innocence, because that is now clearly established, but the appropriateness of the penalties. Roberts fills in many gaps left by David Greenglass's silence over the years and explains events in the context of the time, informed by fifty years of retrospection, research, and disclosure. (As we go through another period of demonization of our adversaries, perhaps this is even more timely a perspective.) He presents David Greenglass faithfully and with ample insight into the witness's psyche and motives. Greenglass comes off as no hero, and evolves as one who was more often careless with the truth than not, but as the central figure that he was in a web of espionage that included Julius and probably Ethel Rosenberg.Probably without trying to do so, Roberts presents a very powerful argument against the death penalty and helps secure a proper place in the history of American jurisprudence for Judge Kaufman and the prosecutorial cheerleader, Roy Cohn. Many people talked with Roberts as the book was prepared, and their comments and observations make the book all the more interesting and important.