TABLE OF CONTENTS
From Certainty to Uncertainty
The Urge to Write
Who Is Right?
Milestones
The New Freedom
From Certainty to Uncertainty
In the middle of writing a book about the trial of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, “uncertainty” crept in and raised its ugly head to baffle and befuddle the author. As I had always believed in their innocence, it was inevitable that the day should come when I would write a book to try and prove it. It was a labor of love! I started the book ages ago but was forced to lay it aside to seek gainful employment. Only years later, after retiring as a professor, did I have a chance to continue. I immediately discovered that the world of 2012 was “a new world” and not at all the same as the period when I had first started my research. Now there was new evidence that Julius Rosenberg was not innocent after all—meaning that my cherished interpretation was tottering on the brink of the untenable.
Such a realization came as a mind-numbing shock. The new truth dawned on me quite slowly at first, until finally it became a specter that shadowed my every step: a specter I could not deny or escape. It is difficult for any writer to admit something he wrote is of no value, whether fiction or fact; if it’s hard enough for the novelist to do so, it’s doubly hard for the historian for whom such an admission is tantamount to confessing the “sin of error” in academic methodology or philosophical viewpoint or both. No matter how rationalized, such an error tears down one’s carefully constructed self-image and leaves one’s ego open to the battering winds of doubt and uncertainty.
Today, I am no longer sure if the chapters already penned still retain any value, now that I am forced to concede my whole approach was wrong-headed; indeed, I do not know if the original seventeen chapters will ever see the light of day–yet that is no longer my main concern. Ultimately, I have a moral obligation to concede my error, as I now see the matter, and to make amends. Honesty must always be given the highest priority of any scholar and so it shall. Backing the wrong horse in historical interpretation is an ungodly matter with which I continue to wrestle, but cowardice or delay in recognizing academic truth is as unacceptable to me as it would be to any other scholar in the field.
Thus, concerning my intended book “Julius and Ethel Rosenberg: Guilty or Innocent?”, I must here begin the painful task of recounting my personal journey from believing completely in the innocence of Julius and Ethel to the moment of realization that it was time to abandon ship: i.e., to abandon such belief. It was a blow but it must be done! It is my intention to offer the reader some pertinent background material in order to clarify how and when such a transformation occurred, that others may be spared repeating some of the circuitous pathways and detrimental detours that plagued my earliest efforts.
The story begins in the 1980’s. While working as a book shelver in a local library, I stumbled across a book by Ronald Radosh and Joyce Milton on the famous 1952 trial of accused spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. Intrigued by its title, The Rosenberg File, I decided to investigate further. The Rosenbergs and my family shared the same surname but the “coincidences” went deeper; besides the common Jewish background, my parents had been active members of the American Communist Party.
The expression “There but for the grace of God . . .” came to mind more than once when comparing my parents’ lives to the story Julius and Ethel. The similarities, real or imagined, certainly created for me mixed feelings of indignation and trepidation, curiosity and dread. Was it even possible that in this country an innocent couple had been put to death–and could that same fate have befallen my own mom and dad?
My parents believed in the couple’s innocence. They took the view that both Julius and Ethel had been convicted because they were Jewish and Communists. Of course I inherited this view, this “parental introduction” to the case. Even with hindsight, it seems nearly impossible for a young person to determine how much of his views were shaped by his parents and how much through true independence of mind. As I grew older and began reading American history more deeply, I saw little to change my mind about the Rosenberg trial.
Miscarriages of justice can occur and it remained my firm belief that this was just such an example. Over the years, from childhood through adolescence and into manhood, I held tightly to this core belief. I “knew” the trial was a travesty and the verdict “pre-ordained” due to perjury, hearsay testimony, manufactured evidence, and anti-communist hysteria. In short, the Rosenbergs never had a “fair chance for a fair trial” under McCarthyism.
By the time of the trial in 1951, our once indispensable wartime ally, the USSR, was being portrayed as America’s mortal enemy. The very allegation, that the couple helped steal the secret of the atomic bomb during World War II to give to the Russians was enough to send a chill down anyone’s spine: they could not be tried, convicted, and executed quickly enough! So believed millions of Americans but my parents were not counted among them, nor was I. It was a personal view that would remain intact for many years and one that I firmly believed could never shatter or split. I was to be proven wrong. That day was still far in the future—but it would come.
The Urge to Write
Holding the Radosh and Milton book in my hands, I felt a growing sense of trepidation, a nameless fear that the co-authors might present such a strong case against the Rosenberg couple that it would shatter all my illusions about their innocence. I really knew precious little about the myriad details and inner workings of the trial itself; I had not yet had cause to familiarize myself with all the testimony and the exhibits introduced into evidence. True, over the years I had read a number of books that admirably exposed weaknesses in the prosecution’s case, most notably Miriam and Walter Schneir’s Invitation to an Inquest and William Reuben’s The Atom Bomb Hoax. Unfortunately, I had not spent much time balancing those views with forays into the writings of the other “guilty as charged” side. I checked the book out for my next read.
The Radosh and Milton book, The Rosenberg File, would be my first full-length exposure to the government’s case through the prosecutor’s point of view. My trepidation increased as I began reading the first few pages but then a curious phenomenon set in: a mix of disbelief and scratching-my-head bewilderment. I soon began asking: “What is going on? Is this all? Where is the case against the Rosenbergs?” Ever naïve and ever opinionated, I welcomed the great surge of relief sweeping over me! I kept reading and began jotting down notes. After finishing the book I was convinced more than ever that the authors had failed to make their case. I felt they had done a rather poor job of proving that Julius and Ethel were guilty of anything, let alone conspiring to steal the secrets of the atomic bomb from Los Alamos, New Mexico.
Many of the incriminating details that the authors had gussied up left me not only unconvinced but flabbergasted; most of their “facts” appeared to work as much in favor of the Rosenbergs as against them! I found numerous holes in their evidence and fallacies galore in their line of reasoning—and so naturally I held on: the Rosenbergs were indeed innocent as I had rightly believed all along! Under the influence of other books in which the authors dared to question the legitimacy of the trial, I began sketching my own reply aimed at “The Rosenberg File.” Perhaps Radosh and Milton believed there was no one left who cared enough to criticize their work—I set out to prove they were wrong and that there remained active a few defenders of the Rosenbergs able and willing to do battle once more.
My original intent was simply to write a free-flowing essay. I would write it not as an academic exercise but rather as a personal expression of righteous indignation. After so many years, these two authors–Radosh and Milton–had the nerve to repeat the errors and tragic mindset that produced this travesty of the McCarthy Era’s most famous trial in the first place! I was angry and needed to vent my anger against the prosecution’s original case being revived three-and-a-half decades and once again foolishly proclaimed as “airtight”. It all seemed like warmed-over McCarthyism with the same sort of politically biased reasoning being passed off on an unsuspecting American public; of that much I was fairly sure!
However, having already earned a PhD in U.S. History, this author could not help but begin to self-critique his own writing in an effort to limit its non-scholarly tone. It wasn’t much of a step from toning down the anger to recognizing the need to add a few sources and footnotes–even though it was never my intention to write an academic monograph so much as an independent essay with an attitude. Still, for my essay to be taken seriously, I needed to pay homage to at least some of the traditional trappings of scholarship. If I wished to produce a work that supported the view that the Rosenbergs had been denied justice and sacrificed on the Altar of Anti-Communism, then my essay needed far more substance and far less hyperbole: the process of transformation began.
Inevitably, the writing took off on its own and began to morph from outraged rebuttal toward a recognizable scholarly work, meaning a researched critique with some semblance of academic objectivity. The discerning reader may observe that it actually ended up a hybrid product; the original fault line in intention and purpose, construction and design, may be heard rumbling underneath the flow of words. This appraisal remains true even after allowing for my good faith effort to transform the original work from opinionated polemic to academic essay in order to make a “serious contribution” to the never-ending controversy swirling around this case. In any event, as my views evolved, I decided it would be best to withdraw the original work from its intended debut in the public arena—to abandon entirely its journey toward the light of publication. This essay takes its place, for the reasons given below.
Who Is Right?
At the risk of being accused of an author’s vanity, I must admit–regarding those first seventeen chapters–I had gone all out. I did not merely nitpick at the trial proceedings to suggest the judicial system functioned imperfectly. No, I went much further and insisted that the Rosenbergs were scapegoats and innocent. I vigorously argued that the couple had not received a fair trial, thus establishing an alternative explanation of how an innocent couple could be found guilty and condemned to death. This unfair trial with conviction was due to the political climate of McCarthyism. This negative view of the era does not originate with me, of course, since the next generation or two of Americans came to understand that the era lent itself to excesses of every kind.
The verdict seemed unfair for another reason: the trial procedures themselves. The courtroom evidence simply did not appear convincing “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Moreover, it was long suspected by the defenders of the Rosenbergs that the prosecutorial staff had “coached” key government witnesses to such an extent that one or more of them may have committed perjury. We now know there was indeed real merit to this viewpoint but it did not prove to be the doorway through which scholars could enter to prove the Rosenbergs’ innocence; it merely showed that the prosecution staff was not above resorting to “questionable practices” to enhance their chances of securing the verdict they sought.
In my many years studying American history, I’ve long felt a special fascination for controversial legal cases that involved the accusation of a miscarriage of justice if not outright frame-up, such as:
• the Haymarket Affair in Chicago in the 1870’s (defendants convicted, several executed);
• The trial of Big Bill Haywood, I.W.W. leader, for murder in Idaho (acquitted, thanks to Clarence Darrow’s brilliant defense);
• The trial of Joe Hill for murder in Utah (convicted, executed);
• And perhaps the most famous “cause celebre” of all, the trial of Sacco and Vanzetti in Boston (both men executed).
Nor should we forget such a famous trial as that of the Scottsboro Boys for the alleged rape of two white women (most defendants convicted, none executed), along with other lesser known trials of defendants wherein political beliefs, class, and race played roles as crucial to the outcome of the trial as the evidence itself. In brief, there is no shortage of trials where defendants were not guilty of the crimes charged but were convicted due to other forms of extra-legal pressures such as racism, anti-Semitism, anti-Communism, and undisguised hostility to labor activists. America has a curious tradition of its own in this area; as one historian remarked “’frame-up’ is an American word.”
Even in this relatively enlightened day and age, we still see problems with the quality of eyewitness testimony and physical evidence contributing to convictions. Due to the scientific advances in DNA testing, for example, it can be fairly argued that our justice system—despite all its efforts and safeguards to ensure fair trials—is not free from error. The list of prisoners exonerated through DNA testing continues to grow yearly. If a pattern of mistakes in the justice system is still quite visible today, one can reasonably surmise that it was equally true in the past–and perhaps to a more marked extent the farther back in time we go.
While the introduction of DNA evidence has exposed wrongful convictions brought about by traditional methods of investigation and prosecution, it also represents a tremendous advance in the field of forensic science. Unfortunately, the farther back in time one goes, the more likely it is that such standards were once far weaker or even non-existent. Mistakes have happened, past and present, but trials that involve allegations of trumped-up charges, railroading, and frame-up comprise a special category and take on a life of their own. The line between an accidental and deliberate miscarriage of justice is not easily traced when crossed.
To this list of controversial cases that may have involved misconduct on the part of the prosecutor and the wrongful conviction of innocent persons, I once gladly appended “The Rosenberg Case”, positive that it belonged to either the category of “miscarriage” or “frame-up.” The first term implies an accidental result; the second suggests a deliberate and secret manipulation of evidence in order to secure a conviction at any price. In my household growing up, it was asserted matter-of-factly not only that Julius and Ethel were innocent but that they had been railroaded: no simple mistake but rather that vile category of “deliberate”. This belief was typical for practically every left-progressive household in America, while overseas huge demonstrations were held in Europe to protest the couple’s conviction.
Appeals for justice and clemency came from around the world, from ordinary citizens to successful artists, writers, and intellectuals. From an ideological perspective, this spectrum of believers in the innocence of the Rosenbergs ranged from members of the communist and socialist parties to political independents, liberals, and moderates. This part of the political spectrum has been nicknamed “left-progressive” and one would have expected no less from them, but there were many others—intellectuals, journalists, writers–who also feared a miscarriage of justice had taken place and soon spoke out as well.
This community of souls who questioned the trial and its outcome included scientists and scholars of considerable renown. The intellectual critique was fueled by journalists and authors who dug deep to pen articles and books that vigorously questioned the lack of fairness in the conduct of the trial. These writers found substantial grounds for proclaiming the couple’s innocence, or at least condemning the tainted judicial process by which they had been convicted. Furthermore, a decade after the trial this belief was passed on during the 1960s to a new generation of college students and social activists getting involved in the new struggles for justice on behalf of workers, women, and minorities.
Even the growing split between the Old Left and the New Left did not seem to apply here; the belief in the innocence of the Rosenbergs was inherited virtually intact, as a matter of principle. Among the new generation of Hippies and Leftists, carrying on the old-timers’ knowledge and wisdom in these matters was a form of resistance to the Man, the Machine, the Status Quo–and other such monikers for the unfeeling, graspy, greedy economic system that abused ordinary working Americans all along the line: a common belief of both the older and younger radicals.
The whole system was abhorrent to them; a new generation of activists wished to challenge and reform, if not destroy it, altogether. The Rosenbergs were still “innocent” throughout the 1960’s . . . and beyond. And this Rosenberg in his naïveté continued on with his college education, hoping to one day write a book proving the innocence of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg . . . but having no idea or plan when this would happen. The start of that journey lay twenty years in the future.
Milestones
Thus, at the conclusion of the trial in 1951 at which Julius and Ethel were convicted and sentenced to death, the controversy did not end; rather, in an upside down sort of way, the debate over their fate intensified. To question their guilt hardly seemed possible in the early 1950s under the conformist pressures of McCarthyism, but this in itself helped lay the foundation for critical reviews of the evidence in subsequent years. As the hysteria waned, it opened the way for new voices to be heard. The fears engendered by McCarthyism certainly had kept many Americans silent, although a few brave souls had begun the daunting task of challenging the government’s version of events while the couple yet lived.
The critics did so even if it meant risking the label of “disloyal”: facing social ostracism, blacklisting, and other forms of subtle and not-so-subtle social retribution. These belated efforts to save the Rosenbergs from death proved unsuccessful; the couple was electrocuted in June 1953. That should have been the end of the matter, yet even then the case continued to engender the strongest of passions, as it has ever since. An ever-lengthening list of books has been produced on both sides with heated exchanges of point and counter-point, rebuttal and counter-rebuttal, and “critiques-of-the-critiques”.
Numerous authors have devoted hundreds of hours to research and writing so there came into existence two distinct and equally strong literary traditions: one camp maintaining that the Rosenbergs never received a fair trial and were victims, while the other camp argued they did receive a fair trial and were guilty as charged. Two truths, two groups seemingly at irreconcilable odds with one another, continued to engage in literary battle over evidence and testimony. The clashes continued from one year to the next until the years gave way to decades.
More than fifty years later, the argument still raged on between proponents on these two opposite sides searching for one final truth. A few were hard-headed ideologues but most were open-minded sincere men and women, lay and scholar, doing their best to follow the trail of evidence wherever it might lead. Both sides hoped to disentangle the convoluted plot-lines and get to the bottom of what really happened. Presidencies came and went but the intellectual sword play did not end. Now and then a period of calm inactivity appeared to prevail, as though the controversial trial seemed at last ready to accept being buried and forgotten, but it was more illusion than real–the various legal and moral controversies raised by the 1951 trial were never destined to remain petrified in time forever. Indeed, from time to time quite extraordinary developments were occurring, among which perhaps the most important were these, placed in chronological order:
1) 1976: disclosures made as a result of a suit filed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by the sons of the Rosenbergs, Robert and Michael Meeropol. The FBI files could now be perused for the “smoking gun of guilt” or the “definitive proof of innocence”. Both sides looked eagerly for unmistakable evidence of the couple’s complicity in a spy ring or revelations proving the exact opposite–perhaps “proof positive” of prosecutorial misconduct in the manipulation of witnesses. If either side was expecting a knock-out blow, both were to be disappointed. The wrangling didn’t end; it intensified! As might be expected, both sides claimed they had found what they needed to find; the never-ending debate heated up to red-hot and both sides donned their fighting armor once again. The year was 1976.
2) 1980: “’The Crime of the Century’ Revisited: David Greenglass’ Scientific Evidence in the Rosenberg Case” (Science & Society, Vol. 44, No. 1, Spring 1980, pp. 1-26) by Gerald E. Markowitz and Michael Meeropol. The two authors, using FOIA released material, advanced the view that the information David Greenglass was alleged to have given to Julius Rosenberg, was itself worthless from a scientific point of view. It was perhaps the high water mark for the defenders of the Rosenbergs. The year was 1980.
3) 1993: The American Bar Association’s mock re-enactment of famous trials focused on the Rosenberg case, with a rather stunning result; the jury found the couple innocent: “Mock Trial Acquits Rosenbergs—20 Years After Their Execution” (San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 11, 1993). It appeared the defenders of the Rosenbergs had scored a significant victory, but it would be short-lived. The year was 1993.
4) 1995: publication of the “Venona” project, CIA decoding of Soviet communications from the 1940’s: “Proof of Rosenbergs’ spying emerges from CIA’s vaults” (San Jose Mercury News, July 12, 1995), which led many to believe the identity of Julius Rosenberg as a spy had finally been definitively established, perhaps irrevocably so. The tide now was beginning to turn. The year was 1995.
5) 1997: Russian confirms spying: “Rosenbergs’ role as spies downplayed”.
“A retired KGB colonel has for the first time disclosed his role as the human conduit between Moscow and Julius and Ethel Rosenberg . . . Alexander Feklisov, 53, said in an interview Saturday that the Rosenbergs were executed unjustly because while Julius did give away military secrets, he had not provided Russia with any useful material about the atomic bomb.” (The San Jose Mercury News, March 16, 1997, page one and page 12A).
The year was 1997.
6) 2001: two related milestones:
Publication of The Brother by New York Times editor Sam Roberts, along with an interview of David Greenglass by Bob Simon during “60 Minutes II”. The subject of Roberts’ book was David Greenglass, the brother of Ethel Rosenberg. During the interview with Bob Simon, Greenglass conceded that his testimony against his own sister, Ethel Rosenberg, was added at the last minute due to the great pressure he was under shortly before the trial began; he actually had no clear memory of such activity as having taken place, thus prompting headlines such as “Rosenberg’s Brother Admits Perjury” followed by this succinct summary: “Nearly 50 years after convicted spy Ethel Rosenberg was executed, her brother has admitted that he lied under oath to save himself and says he is unconcerned that his perjury may have sent his sister and her husband to the electric chair . . . . In the [Roberts’] book . . . Greenglass admits to further perjury in court and before a congressional committee . . .”
(The New York Times, online, from Associated Press dispatch, Dec. 5, 2001)
Smoking gun? If it were, it was too little, too late. The year was 2001.
7) 2008: Morton Sobel finally admitted to being a spy. A co-conspirator at the 1951 trial, he was convicted and sentenced to 30 years; released after 19 years. The year was 2008.
Of these major milestones, #2, #3 and #6 appear to favor the Rosenbergs and their defenders: the article about Greenglass’ lackluster scientific testimony; the American Bar Association’s mock re-enactment of the trial; and Sam Roberts’ book The Brother describing David Greenglass (Ethel’s brother) and Bob Simon’s interview of him, all combined to suggest strongly that the Rosenbergs had not passed on crucial atomic bomb secrets, while coached perjury on the prosecution’s side played a considerable role in the couple’s conviction, just as their defenders had always believed.
Meanwhile, milestones #4, #5, and #7 clearly undermined the claim that the Rosenbergs were innocent: the story of the Venona Project; Russian Alexander Feklisov’s account; and Morton Sobell’s concession that he had been a spy all combined to produce a rather telling account of the Rosenbergs’ guilt. Of all the milestones, the release of the Venona Report ultimately would prove most decisive although that was not immediately evident upon the report’s release. As for #1—the FBI files—this source continued to be hotly contested since both sides claimed the files revealed new details that supported their point of view.
The New Freedom
No matter what new major development occurred, it always seemed for years and years as though the intellectual scuffling would never end. Even when details of the Venona Project were first published, the two sides began to battle over its authenticity and just how much it truly revealed–even as they previously clashed over the documents released under the Freedom of Information Act. Inasmuch as the pages of the Venona Report were often heavily redacted (key names blacked out) the defenders of the couple could still insist that there was no irrefutable identification of Julius Rosenberg as a spy beyond the assertion that two spy code aliases, “Liberal” and “Antenna”, were allegedly his. However, if it turned out that “Liberal” really was Julius, then Ethel is implicated as well: “In one of the few transmissions that cites Ethel Rosenberg, she is called ‘Liberal’s wife . . . first name Ethel’.” The convolutions of the case appeared endless; one must keep in mind that the Venona Report is a product of the 1990’s and not evidence introduced into the 1951 trial itself.
At a minimum, had I been following all these developments closely, there was now more than enough evidence for me to start reconsidering my long-held belief in the couple’s complete innocence–except that I had laid aside my manuscript in the late 1990s after being offered a professorship at a small private college. I then found myself too busy with teaching so all research and writing came to a stop. The manuscript was set aside; I hoped to return to it “someday” even as my new career became my passion. Safe in my world as professor at a teaching college, I no longer had the time to delve deeply into these matters; when a friend sent me a copy of the Venona Project I merely glanced at it and set it aside. Even the news that Morton Sobel had conceded his role as a spy seemed brief and distant; I heard it as a voice speaking from a dense fog far away.
Investigating the case always had involved so many twists and turns that this news item about Sobel entered my subconscious as just one more unexpected twist that would need to be run to ground. I paid it no great mind at the time, probably rationalizing it away with: “that’s Sobel’s tale only and not the real story of Julius and Ethel, whom I am still defending”. As far as I was concerned, nothing materially had changed regarding my book and my approach. In fact, everything had changed, only I was too busy with professorial work on campus to fully realize it! I suppose the first seeds of doubt had been planted but I remained happily oblivious to its obvious significance. Perhaps ignorance is bliss after all.
Finally, after retiring, I began thinking about picking up the research pieces from where I had left off. I began rereading chapters, reviewing notes, gathering new material, researching the Venona Report and other such material, as well as scrutinizing the court transcript itself. All the evidence was already there in place waiting to show me the pathway to a different conclusion than the cherished belief I had held my whole life—I realized in hindsight, with a wry smile, that I must have laid aside my manuscript shortly before I would have reached the threshold of realizing my error! It was an odd sensation for me to come back to the case thinking I would finish my manuscript proving to the world that the Rosenbergs were innocent, only to be confronted with sufficient evidence among my research materials to realize I had to abandon such a position. But how?
Sobel, who had insisted on his innocence for many long years, had conceded his part in a spy ring; this in turn added considerable credibility to the Venona Report with its involved story of how a Soviet spy ring had been unmasked–the many years spent on a work intending to clear the names of Julius and Ethel began crumbling to dust. There were still some minor matters not yet fully resolved but when I finished reviewing all the material (2014) a new and different kind of moral obligation appeared. Coincidence of surname aside, I had chosen the Rosenberg case for one main reason; if they were wrongly convicted, I simply believed it was essential for at least one American citizen of the next generation to fight for them and to be their voice. That was my original way of looking at the matter but now this attitude and this belief had to be replaced.
Thinking it over, my mind hearkened back to the days of childhood when my parents taught my sister and me to be honest. If we made a mistake, we must own up to it. Truthfulness above all! I was glad that my parents showed that kind of unwavering commitment to guiding my sister and me all the way into adulthood and the safe port of a moral life. Honesty, loyalty, kindness, courage, compassion: these were the basic values by which a boy becomes a man. I understood my parents’ message: develop these traits of character and live by them in good conscience; then a person would fare well no matter what other vicissitudes of fortune or misfortune Life might toss his way.
As a consequence, one of the cherished principles I live by is the time-honored “gentleman’s code” of accepting responsibility for one’s actions and words. If and when a man is shown to be in the wrong, then he must admit his error without delay. It now became necessary for me to concede, based on Venona, the not-to-be-denied likelihood that Julius was involved in industrial espionage, along with Morton Sobel and others. By extension, if the Venona revelations proved true, then the question of whether Julius had engaged in atomic bomb espionage likewise had to be re-examined and given its due weight. If the first were true, it greatly increased the chances these other accusations were true as well.
I never particularly cared for the expression “like an ostrich with its head buried in the sand” since scientists tell us it is untrue in terms of the flightless bird’s actual behavior, but I had to admit that the phrase appeared strikingly apt regarding my own behavior; all these momentous milestones had come and gone and I was not able to give them the full and undivided attention they deserved—now the bill fell due. I had no more excuses for dodging the truth. Ostrich or no, it was time to get my head out of the sand.
Eventually, the Venona Report and the preponderance of evidence began tipping the scales toward reaffirmation of the prosecutor’s original case against the Rosenbergs. The end-game was in sight but not all of us “defenders of the Rosenbergs” were yet aware. For so many years we had convinced ourselves that we were moving steadily on the attack to capture the enemy’s king, when in fact we were on the point of being checkmated. We were done, or at least I was; the other defenders of the Rosenbergs must chart their own course, but for this author, it was now time to change my viewpoint. This was going to be hard but it had to be done–in the name of personal honesty and integrity, if for no other reason.
As I finished rereading my draft chapters, my notes for further research, the court transcript, clipped newspaper articles, and web-based articles on such major developments as briefly outlined above, it finally dawned on me that I was wrong—and that I had been wrong all along. That subconscious thought probably had appeared much earlier but it took quite awhile for it to break through to the surface of my conscious mind, and longer still for me to recognize the pressing need to review all case material anew with new eyes. It wasn’t until I was able to create a list like “Milestones” (above) that I could begin to overcome my blind spots. I had become quite adept at rationalizing away arguments that I didn’t like–a trait that was now suddenly apparent to me.
Never having had to endure such a major change of mind concerning historical interpretation, it took me awhile to even fathom what was happening, or how to organize my thoughts sufficiently to proceed. My first impulse was to throw the manuscript away and just let the whole literary effort disappear as though it never happened. At the same time I felt an overwhelming sense of moral obligation to write of this change and the reasons for it. Writing has always meant a chance for me to express my innermost thoughts so it was natural for me to choose this medium; there was an urgent need to explain my journey by placing this article before you.
I do not wish to make excuses for the years “wandering in the wilderness” nor do I seek to curry favor with anyone by “switching sides” as an exercise in pragmatic political correctness. Rather, I am obeying a far more important deeply embedded personal instinct to correct an error of judgment; it is an internally generated exercise in honesty which is the best and only path for a scholar, for a human being, to take in order to maintain his reputation of character and to free his soul.
