How was the Rosenberg case seen before the declassification of VENONA?
As far as I know, Alger Hiss was seen as probably not guilty, and is now seen as likely guilty. What about the Rosenbergs, even their sons have given up on Julius, now, but before the declassification, how were each seen? Was there a political split on views?
The Government did as far as I remember, declassify some things from VENONA during the trial itself, was it stated how they got it? Was anti-semetism an issue in the case; IIRC the judge was himself Jewish, though he might have been chosen to avoid this appearance.
For whatever reason, Reddit has been eating this thread's comments. Here are my various replies given:
The government did not declassify anything from VENONA for the trial. The entire trial was based on cooperative witness testimony (mainly that of David Greenglass and Harry Gold). They did declassify aspects relating to the atomic bomb (namely the implosion mechanism) to use as evidence in the trial.
As a consequence, for those who wanted to believe the Rosenbergs were framed, the idea was that Greenglass and Gold were unreliable or under intimidation of some sort. And to be sure, Greenglass and Gold both were somewhat unreliable figures — Greenglass later admitted to perjuring himself to get his wife out of charges, and Gold is as fishy a character as they come. There were indeed many peoples, especially those on the liberal side of the political spectrum, who believed the whole thing was a "frame job," or at the very least, highly exaggerated in its charges. (This line of thought was also encouraged by the Soviet Union, as well, who happily made the Rosenbergs into martyrs with their own propaganda within the United States.)
There were careful historical assessments made before VENONA that concluded that they probably were spies of some sort, but that the trial and sentencing were probably somewhat "overheated" on account of the political context. Ronald Radosh's work fits into this category, and holds up pretty well.
There were those who alleged that anti-Semitism was behind the case. I don't know how prevalent that view was; not so uncommon, perhaps. The judge and prosecuting attorneys (Irving H. Saypol, Roy Cohn, etc.) were all Jewish — that by itself does not undo the possibility of anti-Semitism, though (Jews can also be anti-Semitic, just as African-Americans can be anti-Black, Whites can be anti-White, and homosexuals can be homophobic — Roy Cohn is a nice case-study in the latter case, as well).
The sons (the Meerpols) did insist on the innocence of their parents. They have shifted today to saying their mother might have been innocent, and that the sentencing was unjust.
So you can see that the VENONA revelations shifting things around quite a bit. There was some suspicion of them early on, but lots of redundant and unlikely-to-be-faked stuff has reconfirmed that Julius was surely the head of a spy ring. Ethel's involvement is still quite ambiguous (VENONA does not resolve it and hints that it was minor). The question of the justice of the sentencing is still an open one. But the idea that the whole thing was a big witch hunt basically fell away in the 1990s. Whether anti-Semitism played a role in the media coverage or sentencing is still somewhat of an open question — there are definitely instances of it in the coverage and aspects of it may have influenced sentencing.
To questions regarding Ethel's involvement:
The argument that she had zero idea that it was going on is hard to swallow. But no account, other than Greenglass's perjured testimony, has her very involved with anything significant. She's still probably complicit. But whether she deserved to die for that is another question.
The government did not declassify anything from VENONA for the trial. The entire trial was based on cooperative witness testimony (mainly that of David Greenglass and Harry Gold). They did declassify aspects relating to the atomic bomb (namely the implosion mechanism) to use as evidence in the trial.
As a consequence, for those who wanted to believe the Rosenbergs were framed, the idea was that Greenglass and Gold were unreliable or under intimidation of some sort. And to be sure, Greenglass and Gold both were somewhat unreliable figures — Greenglass later admitted to perjuring himself to get his wife out of charges, and Gold is as fishy a character as they come. There were indeed many peoples, especially those on the liberal side of the political spectrum, who believed the whole thing was a "frame job," or at the very least, highly exaggerated in its charges. (This line of thought was also encouraged by the Soviet Union, as well, who happily made the Rosenbergs into martyrs with their own propaganda within the United States.)
There were careful historical assessments made before VENONA that concluded that they probably were spies of some sort, but that the trial and sentencing were probably somewhat "overheated" on account of the political context. Ronald Radosh's work fits into this category, and holds up pretty well.
There were those who alleged that anti-Semitism was behind the case. I don't know how prevalent that view was; not so uncommon, perhaps. The judge and prosecuting attorneys (Irving H. Saypol, Roy Cohn, etc.) were all Jewish — that by itself does not undo the possibility of anti-Semitism, though (Jews can also be anti-Semitic, just as African-Americans can be anti-Black, Whites can be anti-White, and homosexuals can be homophobic — Roy Cohn is a nice case-study in the latter case, as well).
The sons (the Meerpols) did insist on the innocence of their parents. They have shifted today to saying their mother might have been innocent, and that the sentencing was unjust.
So you can see that the VENONA revelations shifting things around quite a bit. There was some suspicion of them early on, but lots of redundant and unlikely-to-be-faked stuff has reconfirmed that Julius was surely the head of a spy ring. Ethel's involvement is still quite ambiguous (VENONA does not resolve it and hints that it was minor). The question of the justice of the sentencing is still an open one. But the idea that the whole thing was a big witch hunt basically fell away in the 1990s. Whether anti-Semitism played a role in the media coverage or sentencing is still somewhat of an open question — there are definitely instances of it in the coverage and aspects of it may have influenced sentencing.