Ethel Rosenberg's Guilt

One of the lingering myths of the Cold War era is that Ethel Rosenberg was innocent even if Julius was guilty. This does not meet the common sense test, but it also is refuted by the evidence now available from the Venona decrypts. A recent exchange on the Historians of American Communism H-net should resolve the remaining doubt in anyone's mind. Here is a communication from John Earl Haynes, a distinguished authority on the subject:

Ethel Rosenberg is discussed in two deciphered messages. The earliest is Venona 1340 New York to Moscow, 21 September 1944.

It states:

“Liberal [Rosenberg] recommended the wife of his wife’s brother, Ruth Greenglass, with a safe flat in view. She is 21 years old, a Townswoman [U.S. citizen], Gymnast [Young Communist]. Liberal [Rosenberg] and wife recommend her as an intelligent and clever girl..... Ruth learned that her husband was called up by the army but he was not sent to the front. He is a mechanical engineer and is now working at the Enormous [atomic bomb project] plant in Santa Fe, New Mexico.”

Here the New York KGB station reports on the recommended recruitment into espionage of Ruth Greenglass and, note, the message specifies that not only is Ruth Greenglass recommended by Julius Rosenberg, she is recommended as well by Ethel Rosenberg. Obviously, the New York KGB station thought Ethel’s recommendation as worth noting to Moscow.

The second message is Venona 1657, New York to Moscow, 27 November 1944, reads: “Information on Liberal’s [Rosenberg’s] wife. Surname that of her husband, first name Ethel, 29 years old. Married five years. Finished secondary school. A Fellowcountryman [CPUSA member] since 1938. Sufficiently well developed politically. Knows about her husband’s work and the role of Meter [Joel Barr] and Nil [unidentified source]. In view of delicate health does not work. Is characterized positively and as a devoted person.”

There are those who read “does not work” to refer to espionage. I think that misreads what is simply a reference to her not working outside the home at a regular job. What the message does say, and say very plainly, is that Ethel Rosenberg was legally an accessory to espionage because she “knows about her husband’s work” and well as of the espionage activities of two other members of the Rosenberg network, Joel Barr and the as yet unidentified Nil.

Ethel Rosenberg was not, to be sure, a Soviet agent in the same way her husband was, and one may, as I do, regard the death penalty as excessive for someone whose role was largely as an accessory to her husband’s activities, but she was not innocent.