Cold War Case Files: The Rosenbergs
Was Justice Fairly Served?
Author: Andrea Orndorff, Marriotts Ridge High School, Howard County Public School System
Grade Level: High School
Duration: three 50 minute class periods
HCPSS United States History Essential Curriculum Objectives:
Goal 3: Students will demonstrate the ability to appraise the foreign and domestic policies of
the post-World War II Era. (908.00)
 Objective E: Students will be able to conclude the influence of the Cold War on
the political and social climate of the US. (908.05) 1.2.4
 Honors Level Objective: Students will be able to evaluate the political, social,
and cultural climate of the United States during the McCarthy era of early
1950’s. (908.05 H)
Essential Question: The Rosenberg case remains one of the most controversial in American history.
Ethel and Julius Rosenberg were put to death for espionage at the height of Cold War fears.
Considering the social and political climate of the early 1950s, it is important to ask whether justice
was fairly served. Were the Rosenbergs guilty as charged and the death penalty appropriately
imposed; or, were the Rosenbergs victims of Cold War tension and fear during the era of Joseph
McCarthy?
Background Essay:
The Cold War and the Atomic Bomb
The end of World War II ushered in the nuclear age. The United States demonstrated its
technological superiority and forced Japan to surrender by dropping two atom bombs, Little Boy, a
uranium bomb on Hiroshima, and, Fat Man, a plutonium bomb on Nagasaki. Even before the war
ended, it was clear to the United States that Joseph Stalin, leader of the Soviet Union, would not be a
post-war ally. Conflicting ideology polarized the two nations. Communism behind the iron curtain
stood in stark contrast to the ideals the United States wanted to uphold in Europe, particularly
democracy and capitalism. U.S. foreign policy for the next four decades would focus on fighting the
spread of communism and attempting to maintain a positive balance of power with the Soviet Union.
As each nation tried to keep ahead with developments to its nuclear weapons program, the world
became a more frightening place in which to live.
During the war, the Manhattan Project was the United States’ top secret program to build the
atomic bomb. One of the project’s laboratories was located in the remote area of Los Alamos, New
Mexico. This is where famous scientist Robert Oppenheimer led his team and directed design
experiments. One of the major developments in bomb design implemented by Oppenheimer was the
use of an implosion bomb rather than an explosion bomb. With an implosion bomb, energy is turned
inward and is more concentrated. It subsequently explodes with a much greater force creating a ball of
fire that vaporizes everything in its path (Burnett, 2004). The detonation device for the implosion was
cast in a mold at Los Alamos and was referred to as a lens.
In August 1949, four years after the end of World War II, the Soviet Union announced it had
successfully tested its own atomic bomb. After verifying the accuracy of this report, President Harry
Truman announced to the American people the grave news. His administration also increased military
spending and made a commitment to build an even greater nuclear weapon, the hydrogen bomb.
Questions remained about the Soviet atomic program. How were they able to develop their a-bomb so
quickly? U.S. military officials and scientists did not expect that the Soviets would perfect their
technology for another five years. Did the U.S. harbor atomic spies? To what extent were communist
loyalties a threat to national security? To make matters worse that year, Mao Zedong, the Chinese
communist revolutionary, finally succeed in his fight against the Nationalists. China was now red.
Domestically, the hunt for communist spies intensified. In the summer of 1949, Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents discovered and decoded a report regarding the progress of the
Manhattan Project. It was written in 1944 by Klaus Fuchs, a British atomic scientist. The report was
found in the office of a Soviet official in New York. Did the Soviets steal the report or was Klaus
Fuchs a Soviet spy?
The FBI Investigates the Atom Spy Ring
When questioned, Fuchs admitted to giving information to the Soviets while working on the
Manhattan Project in the United States. He told about a man called “Raymond” to whom he passed the
secret documents. A few months later, the FBI identified Harry Gold, a chemist working in New
York, as the man known to Fuchs as “Raymond.” Gold confessed as well. He also told the FBI that he
took information from a soldier at Los Alamos and delivered it to Anatoli Yakovlev, the Soviet’s head
of spy operations working in New York City. Gold did not know the name of the soldier at Los
Alamos, but he recalled that the soldier’s wife was named Ruth. Further investigation led the FBI to
David Greenglass, a solider working as a machinist at Los Alamos and husband of Ruth Greenglass.
David Greenglass was brought into custody. Like Klaus Fuchs and Harry Gold, David
Greenglass was ready to talk. He confessed to giving information about the atomic bomb to Gold.
Then, Greenglass implicated his brother-in-law, Julius Rosenberg. David told the FBI that Rosenberg
had recruited him to become a spy and had given him the instructions concerning his meeting with
Harry Gold in New Mexico.
Rosenberg was questioned a few days later. He called Greenglass a liar and denied working for
the Soviets as a spy. The FBI released Rosenberg and continued to gather evidence about the spy ring.
On July 17, 1950, agents returned to the Julius Rosenberg’s apartment. This time, they came with an
arrest warrant. Rosenberg was taken away in handcuffs, leaving behind his wife, Ethel, and their two
young sons. He never returned.
The Rosenbergs and the Greenglasses
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg lived in a three-room New York City apartment. In 1950, they
appeared to be an ordinary couple raising two young sons, Michael, age seven, and Robert, age three.
Although they both grew up in the same Jewish neighborhood on Manhattan’s Lower East Side, Julius
and Ethel did not meet until Julius was a student at City College of New York (CCNY). Ethel had
been an astute student in high school and graduated early at the age of fifteen. She enjoyed singing
and acting, but never aspired to attend college. At a New Year’s Eve dance where she was singing,
Ethel met Julius. They married in the summer of 1939 right after he received his degree in electrical
engineering from CCNY.
The couple had a common interest in politics. In college, Julius met many new friends who
were interested in left-wing political ideas. This was the time of the Great Depression and many
Americans were out of work and suffering economically. Julius held the belief that communism was a
better economic system for the United States which would prevent future economic depressions. Ethel
believed in communism, too. At her job as a shipping clerk, she became upset with the working
conditions. She led 150 of her coworkers to strike against the company. Ethel was fired for her union
activities, but her experience left her convinced that a communist system of government in the United
States would benefit all workers.
For a few years before their sons were born, Julius and Ethel were active members of the
Communist Party. On occasion, they hosted party meetings in their apartment. Ethel’s younger
brother, David Greenglass, and his wife, Ruth, also joined the political movement, becoming members
of the Young Communist League. David was an impressionable teenager who looked up to Julius. In
early 1944, Julius and Ethel withdrew from the Communist Party and stopped receiving subscriptions
to the Daily Worker, the party’s official voice. Most likely, the couple did not stop supporting
communist activism, but were distancing themselves from formal party activities while working for the
Soviets (Radosh and Milton, 1997).
In 1943 and 1944, the Communist Party in the United States had more members than any other
point in its history (Radosh and Milton, 1997). At the time, the United States was allied with the
Soviet Union and Great Britain. World War II was being fought. Many communists in the U.S.
supported the fight against fascism, particularly the fascist Nazi party in Germany that was committing
horrific acts against Europe’s Jews. Many of these communists were Jews, like the Rosenbergs, the
Greenglasses, and others in the espionage ring. The Soviet Union was the first nation to make antiSemitism a crime against the state. Confessed spy Harry Gold later explained why he favored the
Soviet Union, “Nazism and fascism and anti-Semitism were identical…anything that was against antiSemitism I was for” (Hornblum, 2010, pp. 39-40).
When David Greenglass went into the army in 1943, he was proud to serve his country, but he
also felt pride in furthering the communist cause by supporting the Soviet Union and recruiting his
fellow soldiers into the Communist Party. As a soldier, Greenglass was assigned to Los Alamos, a
Manhattan Project lab facility in New Mexico. He worked as a machinist and later became foreman in
the high explosives unit.
Julius was exempt from the army. Instead, he had a civilian job as an engineering inspector of
electrical equipment for the U.S. Army Signal Corps. Before the war ended, in the spring of 1945,
Julius was fired when it was discovered he had concealed his previous membership in the Communist
Party. Subsequently, he took a job working with Emerson Radio Corporation in which he worked on
many of the military contract projects he had worked on as a government inspector (Radosh and
Milton, 1997).
The Trial and its Political and Social Context
A federal grand jury met in August 1950. At first, Ethel was not named in the indictment, but
after she was called to testify, she was arrested while returning home on the subway (Burnett, 2004).
Both husband and wife were indicted for conspiracy to commit espionage. The crime was a capital
offense. Morton Sobell, a friend to Julius from his days at CCNY was also named in the indictment.
The FBI suspected Sobell was also a part of the spy ring. All three would be tried together as coconspirators under the provisions of the Espionage Act of 1917. Conspiracy would be much easier for
the prosecution to prove than espionage itself. Once a conspiracy was established by the court, each
co-conspirator could be held legally responsible for the others. Further, in a conspiracy case, hearsay
testimony is permissible (Burnett, 2004). The trial was set for March 1951.
The political and social climate during the trial was fervently anti-communist. The Korean
conflict, the first heated conflict of the Cold War, had taken American soldiers to Asia to fight
communism. The Chinese had just pushed back U.N. forces across the 38th parallel and a stalemate
ensued. In the United States, the Second Red Scare heightened Senator Joseph McCarthy to power as
a champion sleuth who exposed traitorous communists within the United States government. It would
not be until 1954 that McCarthy gets censured by the Senate and McCarthyism is discredited and
blamed for ruining the reputations and careers of many innocent people. The House Committee on
Un-American Activities (HUAC) was also actively ousting communists. The Hollywood blacklist
was growing and a new investigation into the film industry’s connections with communism was
beginning the same year. Further, a HUAC investigation had also led to the arrest of Alger Hiss, a
U.S. State Department and U.N. official. Hiss was accused of being a Soviet spy. In January of 1950,
at the conclusion of a high profile trial, Hiss was convicted of perjury and sentenced to five years in
prison.
Judge Irving Kaufman presided over the Rosenberg-Sobell trial in March of 1950. The jury
was made up of eleven men and one woman. One of the jurors was African American. The rest were
white. None of the jurors were Jewish. The lack of diversity and absence of representatives of the
Jewish faith sparked controversy after the trial. Some Rosenberg supporters claimed the couple did not
have a fair trial due to the jury’s makeup; however, both the prosecution and the defense had rejected
potential Jewish jurors during the jury selection process (Burnett, 2004).
The prosecution called many witnesses, including Max Elitcher (another friend of Julius’ from
CCNY), Harry Gold, and David Greenglass, all self-confessed spies in the espionage ring. Ruth
Greenglass also testified. The FBI promised David Greenglass that they would not prosecute his wife
if he told all of what he knew (Haynes, Klehr, and Vassiliev, 2009). Among the evidence submitted by
the prosecution were replicas of a Jell-O box Greenglass testified was cut and given to him as a
recognition signal and sketches of the a-bomb and the lens mold David recalled drawing and passing
off.
Overall, the testimony was strong against Julius Rosenberg, but scant against Ethel. The most
incriminating testimony regarding Ethel’s participation was her brother’s. Greenglass stated that he
witnessed Ethel type up the handwritten notes he had brought back from Los Alamos. The defense
questioned Greenglass’ motives. They brought up that David had lost money in a business partnership
with his brother and Julius. They argued that not only was David trying to save himself and his wife at
the expense of his sister and brother-in-law, but he was seeking revenge for a business deal gone badly.
On the stand, Julius and Ethel pleaded the Fifth Amendment, enacting their constitutional right
not to incriminate themselves by answer questions. They appeared cold and arrogant to the jury. In
the end, the jury came back with a verdict of guilty for all of the defendants. One week later, Judge
Kaufman rendered the sentencing. Morton Sobell was sentenced to 30 years in prison, Julius and Ethel
Rosenberg were handed the death penalty, and David Greenglass (officially a defendant, but not
convicted by the jury since he had previously confessed) was given 15 years.
Trial Aftermath and the Execution of the Rosenbergs
For the next two years, the Rosenbergs’ attorneys challenged the case with many appeals, but
they were unsuccessful. They presented to the appellate judges three main arguments: (1) the
government failed to prove that the Rosenbergs acted with the intention of doing vital harm to the
country, (2) David Greenglass had testified for personal reasons; and (3) Judge Kaufman had biased
the jury by using emotional language (Burnett, 2004). As the date of execution neared, support for the
Rosenbergs intensified, especially beyond U.S. borders. Ethel’s poems and letters from prison showed
she was a loving wife and mother. Sympathy for the Rosenbergs grew and the grassroots organization,
the National Committee to Secure Justice in the Rosenberg Case, was formed. Mainstream public
opinion in the United States, however, upheld Judge Kaufman’s ruling. Most Americans thought the
Rosenbergs were traitors who deserved to hang.
The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case. President Truman did not grant the
Rosenbergs clemency, passing off the decision to his successor, Dwight Eisenhower. Eisenhower,
flatly denied clemency, but there was a glimmer of hope for the Rosenbergs just before their execution
date. Supreme Court justice, Justice William Douglas, issued a stay of execution as the court was
commencing for the summer holiday. The Rosenberg defense team argued to Douglas that the
Rosenbergs were tried under the wrong law. Instead of the Espionage Act of 1917, Julius and Ethel
should have been tried under the Atomic Energy Act of 1946. The 1946 law requires that a judge not
sentence defendants to death without a sentencing recommendation by the jury of such (Arnow-Alman
and Alman, 2010). Douglas expected that the court would revisit the case when it resumed in the fall.
The Rosenbergs would live for at least a few more months and might even be granted a new trial. To
Douglas’ surprise, the chief justice called the court back into session. The stay of execution was lifted
by a majority ruling of the justices present. The Rosenbergs would be put to death at midnight on
Friday, June 19, 1953.
One last attempt to prolong the execution came as a request to respect the faith of the
Rosenbergs and to not kill them after sundown, the start of the Jewish Sabbath. The request was
granted, but the result was unexpected. Julius and Ethel were put to death in the electric chair four
hours earlier than scheduled at 8:00 pm. Julius was 35 and Ethel was 37. They died in Sing Sing
Prison.
Up until the end, many expected Julius to confess in order to spare Ethel’s life. In fact, there is
evidence to suggest that a death sentence for Ethel was used as a lever against Julius despite J. Edgar
Hoover’s concern that executing a wife and mother with no criminal record might turn public opinion
against the FBI’s war against subversion (Radosh and Milton, 1997). Hoover had recommended a 30year sentence for Ethel on account she was probably acting under the influence of her husband (Hook,
1983).
The Rosenbergs two sons, Michael, 10, and Robert, 6, were left orphaned after the death of
their parents. Most of the Rosenberg and Greenglass family members wanted to distance themselves
from the infamous atom spy case and formally changed their names. Michael and Robert were
adopted by a family named Meeropol and lived private lives until adulthood. Since then, they have
spoken out to proclaim their parents’ innocence and denounce the death penalty. They have also been
instrumental in getting sealed documents relating to the case released to the public.
New Evidence and Questions that Still Remain
Since the trial in 1951, there have been several new developments in the case. Most significant
of these developments has been the declassification of the Venona files. The Venona Project was the
CIA-National Security Agency decoding of secret Soviet reports which began in 1943 and lasted
several decades. Partial translations were released in 1995. The messages did not provide any new
ground-breaking evidence relating to the Rosenberg case, but they confirmed Julius’ involvement in
the Soviet spy ring and Ethel’s innocence.
Other information, including records of the deliberations of the Supreme Court and the Atomic
Energy Commission, documents from the FBI and Justice Department, and memos and diaries of the
participants have become available over the decades. Each new release offers something of interest to
Rosenberg scholars. For example, in a closed hearing of the AEC, General Leslie Groves, the military
director of the Manhattan Project, revealed that the information given to the Soviets was of minor
value (Radosh and Milton, 1997).
Most of the grand jury transcripts have been released, except for David Greenglass’ testimony.
His wish is that it be remained sealed. After his death, the public will be able to view his testimony
and determine if it conflicts with the testimony he gave at trial. David was interviewed by CBS’s 60
minutes in 2001 after being tracked down by the journalist, Sam Roberts. Greenglass was willing to be
interviewed in disguise and share part of his story. In the most revealing part of the interview, David
admits he was encouraged to lie by the prosecution and that he does not recall ever observing Ethel
Rosenberg type his handwritten notes describing the design of the atomic bomb at Los Alamos
(Landes and Rosenbaum, 2001).
Conclusion
Today, most people who study the Rosenberg case believe the trial and execution were a
miscarriage of justice. There is no doubt Julius Rosenberg was a Soviet spy and Ethel knew of his
activities and probably supported them. However, some of the evidence at trial may have been
fabricated, just as the testimony of David Greenglass was partially falsified. The FBI knew Julius was
a spy, but could not enter into evidence communication obtained via a wire tap (Radosh and Milton,
1997). To reveal certain evidence in open court would threaten national security. In addition, legal
scholars argue the death penalty sentence should not have been imposed under the provisions of the
law since the Soviet Union was an ally during the time the crime was committed. The death penalty
under the Espionage Act was reserved for aiding enemy foreign nations (Radosh and Milton, 1997).
At the height of Cold War anxieties in the United States, the outcome of the Rosenberg case
reflected the context of the times. Julius and Ethel Rosenbergs’ execution was meant to deter future
espionage and put pressure on the Rosenbergs to name names of others in the espionage ring. They
also served as scapegoats. Someone had to be punished for the U.S.’s loss of its monopoly on nuclear
weapons. In these ways, the Rosenbergs were victims, but they were in no way innocent. In their
1997 book, The Rosenberg Files, considered the leading piece of Rosenberg scholarship, Ronald
Radosh and Joyce Milton share the lessons Americans should take away from the Rosenberg case:
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and their accomplices were so captive to their blind adulation of
Stalinist Russia that they failed to perceive the true implication of their espionage, much less to
comprehend how their actions would discredit the Left in the eyes of their fellow Americans.
The Rosenberg’s accusers, on the other hand, were oblivious to the fact that the danger to
national security for ideologically motivated amateur spies—already a vanishing breed by the
time of the trial—was far less than the damage that would be done by allowing American
justice to appear to serve as a handmaiden to Cold War politics. Partisans on both sides were
convinced that they held a monopoly on the truth and that the end justified the means. The
result was the grisly tandem electrocution of a husband and wife—a sentence that seemed
justified by the passions of the moment but that had begun to inspire public revulsion even
before it was carried out. The execution of the Rosenbergs stands as an ominous footnote to
the first decade of post-nuclear history. (pp. 453-454)
Bibliography:
Alman, E. A., & Alman, D. (2010). Exoneration: The trial of Julius & Ethel Rosenberg and Morton
Sobell--Prosecutorial deceptions, suborned perjuries, anti-Semitism, and precedent for today’s
unconstitutional trials. Seattle, WA: Green Elms Press.
Bernett, B. (2004). The trial of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg: A primary source account. New York: The
Rosen Publishing Group.
Glazer, N. (1983). The death of the Rosenbergs. In P. Kurtz (Ed.), Sidney Hook: Philosopher of
democracy and Humanism (pp. 65-76). Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
Hornblum, A. M. (2010). The invisible Harry Gold: The man who gave the Soviets the atom bomb.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Landes, J. & Rosenbaum, M. (Producers). (2001). The Traitor [Television series episode]. 60 Minutes
II. New York: CBS News. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7409384n
Radosh, R., & Milton, J. (1997). The Rosenberg File (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press. (Original work published 1983)
Schneir, W. (2010). Final verdict: What really happened in the Rosenberg case. Brooklyn, NY:
Melville House.
Important Terms:
Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) – agency responsible for nuclear power and nuclear weapons
beginning January 1, 1947 when the Manhattan Project formally ended, created by the Atomic Energy
Act of 1946
Capital crime – a crime that can be punishable by death
City College of New York (CCNY) – college Julius attended to study electrical engineering, hotbed
of left-wing political ideology in 1930s
Clemency – forgiveness, cancellation of punishment in part or in whole
Conspiracy – a crime in which there is an agreement among two or more people to engage in illegal
activity, hearsay testimony allowed at trial, the Rosenbergs and Morton Sobell were charged with
conspiracy to commit espionage, not espionage itself
Espionage – transmitting information relating to the national defense to the advantage of a foreign
nation, spying
Espionage Act of 1917 – first enacted during World War I, prohibited interference with military
operations and recruitment, prohibited support to U.S. enemies during wartime, the law has been
amended many times (ex. Sedition Act of 1918, Internal Security Act of 1950), Rosenbergs-Sobell
case was tried under this law
House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) – House of Representatives investigative
committee, operated from 1947 to 1975, focus was anti-communist
Indictment – formal accusation from a grand jury who decide whether there is enough evidence to
warrant a trial, required for a capital case
Internal Security Act of 1950 (Subversive Activities Control Act or McCarran Act) – required
Communist organizations to register with the U.S. Attorney General, created board to investigate
subversive activities, gave the government the power to detain, deport, and revoke the citizenship of
suspected subversives
KGB – Soviet secret police
Manhattan Project – top-secret U.S. government project to build the atomic bomb
Los Alamos – Manhattan Project lab in New Mexico, David Greenglass was stationed there
Treason – a criminal offense involving the attempt, by overt acts, to overthrow the government to
which the offender owes allegiance or to betray the state to a foreign power, the Rosenbergs were not
charged with treason
Young Communist League – recruited teens with left-wing ideology and taught them the tenets of
Soviet communism, some later moved up to become full members in the Communist Party like the
Rosenbergs
Venona Project– a CIA-National Security Agency decoding of secret Soviet reports, began in 1943
and lasted several decades, partial translations released in 1995, did not provide any new groundbreaking evidence relating to the Rosenberg case, but supports Julius’ involvement in the Soviet spy
ring and Ethel’s innocence
List of Important People:
Barr, Joel – engineer working on radar systems, early name of interest in FBI spy ring investigation,
met Julius at CCNY
Bloch, Alexander Bloch – Rosenberg defense attorney, made the arguments for the defense of Ethel
Rosenberg, father of Emanuel Bloch
Bloch, Emanuel “Manny” – Rosenberg defense attorney, made the arguments for the defense of
Julius Rosenberg, son of Alexander Bloch
Cohn, Roy – assistant prosecutor for the government in the Rosenberg case, went on to become Joseph
McCarthy assistant colleague
Douglas, William O. – Supreme Court Justice who issued a last-minute stay of execution on the basis
that the Rosenbergs were sentenced to death without the jury’s consent, his order was reversed
Eisenhower, Dwight – president of the U.S. from 1953to 1961, denied clemency to the Rosenbergs
Elitcher, Max – worked for the U.S. Navy’s weapons department, early name of interest in FBI spy
ring investigation, met Julius at CCNY, testified for the prosecution at trial
Fuchs, Klaus – British atomic scientist who confessed to passing atomic bomb secrets from the
Manhattan Project to the Soviets, indirectly led FBI to Julius Rosenberg
Gold, Harry (“Raymond”) – Swiss-born chemist who confessed to receiving atomic secrets from
both Klaus Fuchs and David Greenglass, testified for the prosecution at trial
Greenglass, David – Ethel Rosenberg’s younger brother, key witness for the prosecution, coconspirator, plead guilty and sentenced to 15 years
Greenglass, Ruth – wife of David Greenglass, alleged co-conspirator, not charge with a crime,
testified for the prosecution at trial
Groves, Leslie – director of the Manhattan Project, revealed in a closed meeting of the Atomic Energy
Commission in 1954 that the secrets passed to the Soviets about the atomic bomb did not help the
Soviets build the atomic bomb and were actually of little value
Hiss, Alger – high-ranking government official accused of being a Soviet spy, convicted of perjury in
1950 and sentenced to five years, high-profile Cold War case one year before the Rosenberg trial
Hoover, J. Edgar – director of the FBI, recommended the death penalty for Julius, but not Ethel
Rosenberg
Kaufman, Irvin R. – federal judge for the Rosenberg-Sobell trial
Meeropol, Michael and Robert (originally Rosenberg) – the Rosenbergs’ sons who were adopted by
a family named Meeropol, lived private lives after the execution of their parents, Robert became active
as an adult in speaking out against the death penalty and established a fund to help children of parents
involved in “progressive activities,” both sons wrote a memoir We Are Your Sons, instrumental in
getting sealed documents relating to the case released
McCarthy, Joseph – senator who led a crusade to oust communists from the U.S. government, held
hearings accusing State Department officials in 1950 setting off a wave of anti-communist hysteria,
censured by the Senate in 1954 after hearings accusing Army officials of communist loyalties
National Committee to Secure Justice in the Rosenberg Case – grassroots organization working to
stop the execution of the Rosenbergs
Oppenheimer, Robert – lead atomic scientist on the Manhattan Project, security clearance revoked by
AEC in 1954 due to his previous Communist sympathies and alleged connection to communist
scientists at Los Alamos
Raymond – See Harry Gold
Rosenberg, Ethel – wife of Julius Rosenberg, convicted of conspiracy to commit espionage, executed
June 19, 1953
Rosenberg, Julius – husband of Ethel Rosenberg, convicted of conspiracy to commit espionage,
executed June 19, 1953, referred to by the code names “Antenna” and “Liberal” by the Soviets
Sobell, Morton – friend of Julius Rosenberg, indicted with Julius and Ethel, convicted of conspiracy
to commit espionage, sentenced to 30 years in prison
Stalin, Joseph – dictator of the Soviet Union, lost the support of some communists in the U.S. due to
the Great Purge and his pact with Hitler in 1939, many more abandoned Soviet-communist ideals due
to Stalin’s post-war policies in Europe
Truman, Harry – president of the U.S. from 1945 to 1953, did not grant clemency to the Rosenbergs
before leaving office
Yatskov (Yakovlev), Anatoli A. – head of Russian UN delegation and the KGB’s chief of U.S. spy
operations working in New York City, Julius’ Soviet contact
Materials:
Teacher Resources:
Mighty Atoms editorial cartoon
Photograph of the Rosenbergs
Popular Hollywood films during World War II
Popular Hollywood films after World War II
Student Resources:
Cold War Case Files: The Rosenbergs: Was Justice Fairly Served? (Student Background Essay)
Historical Sources: Documents 1-13
Cold War Case Investigation Notes, Parts 1-4 (Student Activity Sheets for document analysis)
The Rosenbergs: Poem of the United States (Student Assessment Activity)
Optional Assessments (multiple choice and short response)
Historical Sources with Annotations (see student handouts for citations):
Document 1 – Excerpts of the prosecutions’ opening statement at the Rosenberg trial
Excerpt 1 – The prosecution presents its case to the jury and emphasizes the significance of the
charge, conspiracy to commit espionage, during “the most critical hours” in U.S. history.
Excerpt 2 – The prosecution recognizes that its defense witnesses were a part of the spy ring,
but are not adding “to their past sins by refusing to tell” the truth now.
Excerpt 3 – The prosecution emphasizes that the loyalty of the defendants is to communism,
not the United States.
Document 2 – Excerpts of the defense’s opening statement at the Rosenberg trial
Excerpt 1 – The defense asks the jury not to be persuaded by “bias or prejudice or hysteria”
and explains that the “trial arises in a rather tense international atmosphere.”
Excerpt 2 – The defense asks the jury to evaluate the evidence to determine if the crime has
been committed, not if the defendants believed in communism. Also, the defense highlights
that the prosecution’s witnesses were participants in the alleged spy ring, so the jury should
question their motives in testifying.
Document 3 – Timeline of events (arrests and trials/historical context)
The timeline highlights key events of the Rosenberg case parallel to significant world events during the
1940s-1960s. It is a good secondary source to set the Rosenberg case in the context of the times. The
timeline also provides a quick reference of the outcomes of the criminal prosecution of each significant
participant in the spy ring.
Document 4 – Trial evidence : Jell-O box
This piece of evidence is a recreation of the Jell-O box David Greenglass testified Julius Rosenberg cut
giving him a piece he could later match with its mate. Greenglass testified that the other piece was
given to the spy (Harry Gold) who later contacted him in New Mexico to receive top-secret
information to pass along to the Soviets. In this way, the Jell-O box was used as a recognition signal.
Document 5 – Trial evidence: sketches recreated by David Greenglass for the prosecution
Sketch A – Cross-section of Atom-bomb – Greenglass testified that he gave this sketch along
with the descriptions of the various parts of the bomb to Julius Rosenberg in the Rosenberg
apartment in September 1945. The prosecution argued that the sketch was vital to the Soviets
in building the a-bomb; however, several scientists later disregarded its significance.
Considered a folly that probably hurt the Rosenberg’s case, the defense asked that the sketch be
impounded due to its threat to national security (most likely a tactic by the defense to appear
loyal and patriotic). The judge ruled that the jury see the sketch, but it was sealed from
public view until 1966.
Sketch B – Lens Mold – Greenglass testified that he gave this sketch of the four-leaf clover
shaped high-explosive lens mold design to Julius Rosenberg in January 1945. The lens is the
detonation device for the bomb.
Sketch C – Steel Tube for Implosion – Greenglass testified that he gave this sketch to Harry
Gold in New Mexico in June 1945. The lens is shown attached to the steel tube which would
implode upon detonation.
Document 6 – Excerpts from David Greenglass’ testimony at trial
Excerpt 1 – In this part of his testimony, as he is being questioned by the prosecution during
the direct examination, Greenglass implicates his sister, Ethel, as a co-conspirator who typed up
the notes he had handwritten describing the details of the cross-section sketch. This was the
key evidence the jury used to convict Ethel.
Excerpt 2 – During the cross-examination, Greenglass was questioned about his motives.
Greenglass states he followed Julius Rosenberg’s directions, despite his doubts, because he
worshipped Julius as a hero. The defense’s questioning implies Greenglass participated for the
money.
Excerpt 3 – The defense also argues that Greenglass was motivated to testify against his sister
and brother-in-law because he had lost money in a business partnership. David Greenglass, his
brother, and Julius Rosenberg partnered in a machine shop, G. & R., that went sour.
Document 7 – Photograph of the Rosenberg jury
This photograph was taken at the conclusion of the trial on the steps of the Federal courthouse. Many
Rosenberg supporters claimed the Rosenbergs were found guilty and sent to death due to anti-Semitic
sentiment in the U.S., not based on the facts presented at trial; or, even worse, that the evidence was
fabricated. Comparisons were made to the Sacco-Vanzetti case after World War I in which two Italian
immigrants were put to death for murder during the anti-immigrant hysteria of the First Red Scare. No
juror in the Rosenberg trial was Jewish; however, the judge, the lead prosecutor, his assistant, the key
prosecution witnesses, and co-defendant, Morton Sobell, were Jewish.
Document 8 – Collection of quotes concerning the Rosenbergs’ guilt and impact of their crime
Quote A – In his sentencing speech, Judge Kaufman defends his decision to sentence the
Rosenbergs to death by accusing them of causing 50,000 U.S. casualties in Korea. He also
equates their crime (conspiracy to commit espionage) with treason. Legal scholars argue that
Judge Kaufman imposed the most severe penalty (death) usually withheld for the most serious
of all offenses against the nation (treason). However, the Rosenbergs were convicted of a
much lesser charge. To this day, the Rosenbergs remain the only criminals sentenced to death
in connection with espionage during peace time.
Quote B – This statement made at a closed meeting of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission in
1954 during the hearings to determine if Robert Oppenheimer’s security clearance should be
revoked. Leslie Groves had been the military head of the Manhattan Project. His statement
was meant to be kept off the record, but was made public after a court order decades later from
a suit brought forth by Michael and Robert Meeropol, the sons of the Rosenbergs. Groves had
testified at trial that Greenglass’ cross-section sketch would convey the basic principles
necessary to build the plutonium bomb to an outsider not familiar with the technology.
However, this statement made in 1954, less than a year after the Rosenbergs’ death, reveals that
the information that was passed on to the Soviets was of “minor value.” He emphasizes that he
would not want to public to know this.
Quote C – In response to a clemency request made on behalf of the Rosenbergs by their
attorney, President Eisenhower denies the request and attributes “millions” of deaths to the
espionage activity of the Rosenbergs.
Quote D – Dr. James Beckerley of the Atomic Energy Commission stated in 1954 that Soviet
scientists were capable of building their own atomic bomb and that espionage only “played a
minor role.” This quote, in addition to the statement of Leslie Groves, supports the conclusion
that the Rosenbergs were scapegoats who were punished for America’s loss of the monopoly it
had on the atomic bomb.
Document 9 – Eleanor Roosevelt’s comment on the Rosenberg sentence
In her syndicated column, My Day, Roosevelt supports the death sentence for the Rosenbergs. She
thinks it is “nonsense” that people are making the argument that the Rosenbergs are victims of antiSemitism.
Document 10 – Poems by W.E.B. DuBois and Ethel Rosenberg
Poem A – Writer and activist, W.E.B. DuBois, supported the Rosenbergs. His poem has an
angry tone and a powerful message. He compares the death sentence of the Rosenbergs to the
crucifixion of Jesus, a Jew, and to the mob lynching of thousands of blacks.
Poem B – Ethel wrote this poem to her sons while she waited on death row. She proclaims her
and Julius’ innocence and asks her sons to build a world of love and joy after their death.
Document 11 – Page from the declassified Venona files
The Venona files were declassified in 1995. They contain several thousand coded Soviet messages
that were decoded between 1944 and decades after the end of the war. Most of those who study the
Rosenberg case believe that the Venona files implicate Julius Rosenberg, but vindicate Ethel (Athough
some argue that the Venona files prove Julius was a spy, but not an atomic spy). This page of the files
describes Ethel as a 29 year old “Fellowcountryman,” meaning she is a member of the Communist
Party. The fact that her real name is given instead of a code name points to her innocence. Once in the
spy ring, the Soviets would have referred to her only in code. Julius’ code name in this message is
“Liberal.” He was also known as “Antenna.” This message also states that Ethel does not work due to
her “delicate health.” Ethel had suffered from bouts of ill health due to spine problems and low blood
pressure. Although the Venona evidence shows Ethel knew of her husband’s activities and supported
the cause, she was not a participant.
Document 12 – Author Walter Schneir’s conclusion concerning why the Rosenbergs did not talk
to save themselves
Schneir has followed the Rosenberg case and adamantly supports the argument that the Rosenbergs
were put to death unjustly. He offers his insight to explain why the Rosenbergs did not confess or
name others in the spy ring to save themselves. He claims that Julius could not have confessed in
order to save Ethel (the government would not have spared her life) and that the Rosenbergs had no
choice but to die in order to save others they had recruited into the Communist Party from being
prosecuted under the recently enacted Internal Security Act.
Document 13 – 60 Minute interview with David Greenglass, 2001
Sam Roberts, a journalist who tracked down David Greenglass, encourage him to do an interview with
60 Minutes. In disguise, Greenglass recounts his decision to testify and the particulars of his
testimony. He no longer recalls who did the typing of the a-bomb description and tells 60 Minutes that
Roy Cohn, the assistant prosecutor, told him to fabricate the story that he saw Ethel type them. This
Greenglass interview supports the conclusion that Ethel was not involved in illegal activities. In lieu
of the printed transcript, the eleven minute video of the interview could be shown. It is available at
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7409384n.
Procedures:
I.
Initiate the History Lab

Display the editorial cartoon, “Mighty Atoms,” for student to view. Ask them to interpret the
meaning of the cartoon based on their prior knowledge. Tell students that the United States
was the only nation with the technology of nuclear weapons in 1945. Ask: Would the Unites
States continue to hold a monopoly on the atomic bomb for long? Which nation will quickly
catch up? What are the positive or negative consequences of only one nation having this
technology? What the positive or negative consequences of more than one nation having this
technology? Briefly introduce the Cold War and the beginning of the nuclear arms race.

Read the following quote from the FBI’s website:
“The government of the Soviet Union, as it was then known, publicly announced
the detonation of an atomic bomb [in 1949]. Past experience taught Americans to
treat Moscow pronouncements lightly. However, the White House, in a solemn
statement in September, related the disheartening news which startled and
shocked the nation. The Kremlin had finally come to understand the secrets of the
atom. Russian ingenuity in the scientific field probably contributed considerably to
this discovery. But what of the part played by American traitors…?”
Source: Federal Bureau of Investigations. (n.d.). FBI: The Atom Spy Case [Famous Cases and
Trials]. Retrieved June 5, 2012, from http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/famous-cases/the-atom-spycase/the-atom-spy-case

Ask students what they think is meant by the last sentence. Do they think spies gave away U.S.
secrets about the bomb? What would be the motive to share atomic information with the
Soviets? What would be the consequences if caught by the U.S. government?

Introduce the Rosenbergs by sharing the photo of the couple riding to jail. Tell students that
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg have gone down in history as traitors, their names infamous in
connection with Soviet espionage.
II.
Frame the Essential Question
In this investigation, students will determine if justice was fairly served in the Rosenberg
case. Have students read Cold War Case Files: The Rosenbergs (Student Background
Essay) and facilitate a discussion in order to frame guiding questions. Have students
identify possible information that would help to provide them with answers to the essential
question. For example: What evidence was presented at trial? Did the Rosenbergs remain
communists after the war? Who testified against them? How did the spy ring work? Was
Ethel accused of doing everything her husband was accused of doing? During this process,
generate excitement for the investigation without giving away too many details relating to
the outcome of the case.
III.
Model the Historical Process
Setting the historical context is a key component of this lab. If the Rosenbergs had been
tried at any other time, the outcome would have likely been different. Model the process of
using primary source documents to interpret the change in the political, social, and cultural
climate in the U.S. between the mid 1940s (during World War II) and the beginning of the
1950s when the Rosenbergs were arrested and tried.

Display the images of popular movies during the war. Many Hollywood films were
supported by the U.S. government to bolster support for the war and encourage a
positive relationship with the Soviet Union, an ally. Ask students to infer a common
theme among the movie titles. Lead students to draw conclusions that films during
the war portrayed the Soviet Union in a positive way. Germany was the enemy, not
the Soviet Union. Use the following descriptions as a reference:
Popular Hollywood films during World War II
o Mission to Moscow (1943) – story of U.S. ambassador’s journey to the
Soviet Union, portrays Stalin favorably
o Song of Russia (1943) – American music conductor travels to the Soviet
Union, falls in love, and tours the country seeing its happy people before
the Nazi invasion
o Counter Attack (1945) – Two Russians are trapped in a building
occupied by German soldiers during WWII

o Days of Glory (1944) – Soviet guerrillas defend themselves against the
German invasion of 1941, a female Russian dancer is an unlikely heroine
Display the images of popular movies after the war. At this time, Cold War
tensions between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. escalated quickly. Ask students to infer
a common theme among the movie titles. Lead student to draw conclusions that he
films produced in the late 1940s and early 1950s portray the Soviet Union as the
enemy and its system of communism evil. The films warn Americans not to be
lured into the Communist Party. Use the following descriptions as a reference:
Popular Hollywood films after World War II
o I Married a Communist (1949) – A former Communist Party member is
being blackmailed to participate in subversive activities
o Guilty of Treason (1950) – A Roman Catholic cardinal speaks out about
the Soviet occupation of Hungary
o I was a Communist for the FBI (1951) – an FBI agent works as a
counterintelligence spy, but his family and friends think he’s a
communist
o The Red Menace (1949) – an ex-GI joins the Communist Party and falls
in love with his instructor, they later try to leave, but become targets for
CP assassins
IV.
Facilitate the History Lab
The documents included in the lab are arranged into four groups. Students will progress
through Parts 1-4 of the lab sequentially. For each document set, students will complete a
graphic organizer. Each of the graphic organizers focuses on one of the following major
historical thinking skills: contextualization, sourcing, corroboration, and close reading.

In small groups, have student work through each part one at a time. Facilitate group
learning by posing guiding question to encourage a high level of analysis and close
reading of the documents. As students complete each part, debrief by discussing as
a class the conclusions they have drawn. Before moving on to the next part, briefly
identify with students additional information they would like to know.
Part 1 – The activity focuses on contextualization using the opening statements at trial and a
timeline of events.
Guiding Questions:
 What was it like to live in 1951?
 What things were different in 1951 compared to when the Rosenbergs first
developed their communist ideology?
 What is the prosecution referring to in the phrase, “the most critical hours in our
history?”
 Do you think the Rosenbergs are ultimately guilty because they were members of
the Communist Party?
 Why do you think they stopped being members?
 What is the defense referring to when it asks the jury, “don’t be influenced by any
bias or prejudice or hysteria?”


What two major world events occurred in 1949 that worried the United States?
What was happening in the United States in 1950 relating to communism, the year
the Rosenbergs were arrested?
Part 2 – The activity focuses on sourcing using trial evidence and David Greenglass’
testimony.
Guiding Questions:
 Where did the prosecution get the Jell-O box and the sketches?
 How helpful do you think these sketches would be to the Soviets?
 Does David Greenglass have a reason to lie? Is he getting anything out of
testifying?
 What does Greenglass mean when he says he had “a kind of hero worship?”
 What motives does the defense suggest Greenglass has for testifying?
Part 3 – The activity focuses on corroboration using a photo of the jury and various quotes
and poems about the case
Guiding Questions:
 Does it matter that no one on the jury was Jewish? Would the Rosenbergs still be
able to get a fair trial?
 What event does Judge Kaufman blame on the Rosenbergs? Do you think this is
fair?
 Who else in Document 8 do you think would agree with Judge Kaufman?
 Why is it significant that Groves and Beckerley both state that the information
obtained from the Rosenbergs for the Soviets was insignificant? Do their statements
change or reinforce your opinion of the case?
 What does Eisenhower mean when he states, “I deny the petition?”
 What position does Eleanor Roosevelt take on the issue of execution? How is her
reason for this position different from Judge Kaufman’s or Eisenhower’s?
 What is the tone of W.E.B. DuBois’ poem? Do you think he would agree or
disagree with Roosevelt? Why?
Part 4 – The activity focuses on close reading using a page of the Venona files, a secondary
source quote, and a recent interview with David Greenglass.
Guiding Questions:
 What does the Venona document say about Julius? What does it say about Ethel?
 In what way is this source a primary document? --originally written in 1944 during
the time of the espionage activity
 In what way is the source secondary? --decoded years later, accuracy cannot be
completely verified
 What is meant by the word “FELLOWCOUNTRYMAN?”
 Based on the language Scheir uses, do you think he supports the execution of the
Rosenbergs or thinks it was wrong? What is your reasoning?
 Should the Rosenberg have confessed? Why or why not?
 What is your opinion of David Greenglass based on the interview?

V.
The title of the 60 Minutes interview is “Traitor.” Is this a fair title? To whom was
Greenglass a traitor?
Synthesize Information and Interpretations
Conclude the investigation by synthesizing the information gathered. Readdress the
discussion at the beginning of the lab relating to setting the historical context (movie
posters). Ask students the following questions, probe for insightful responses, and accept
all reasonable conclusions: Was it possible for the Rosenbergs to get a fair trial given the
political, social, and cultural climate of the U.S. in 1951? How might its outcome have
been influenced by other events? Did the Rosenbergs get what they deserved? Do you think
this case warrant the attention it has received over the last 60 years? Encourage the
students to share their interpretations and responses to the essential question.
Optional: Have students write a claim statement summarizing their response. Possible
claim statements include:
 The Rosenbergs were fairly tried, convicted, and sentenced by the American justice
system for their involvement in passing U.S. atomic bomb secrets to the Soviets.
 The Rosenbergs were guilty of espionage; however, the death penalty was not a just
punishment for their crime.
 The American justice system was correct in executing Julius Rosenberg for
conspiracy to commit espionage, but Ethel should not have perished along with her
husband.
 Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were unfairly put to death during the height of the Cold
War. They were victims of McCarthyism and scapegoats for the United States’ loss
of its atomic bomb monopoly.
VI.
Assessment
Distribute the activity The Rosenbergs: A Poem of the United States. Students will write a
nine line poem about one of the important people involved in the Rosenberg case using the
specific format given. In evaluating the poem, be sure students include accurate facts based
on the information provided in the lab, draw conclusions based on evidence, and offer their
own response to the questions: Was justice fairly served? Below are two examples
showing different perspectives of David Greenglass:
David Greenglass
Young, naive, idealistic, helpful
Who lived when the Soviets wanted the a-bomb
Who searched for a way to help the communist cause
Who learned how to spy from his brother-in-law
Who helped to get justice by testifying against his fellow spies
Who is remembered for confessing to his crimes
David Greenglass
David Greenglass
Sneaky, untrustworthy, selfish, cowardice
Brother of the murdered Ethel Rosenberg
Who lived and worked as a Soviet spy at Los Alamos
Who searched for a way out when caught by the FBI
Who learned that by rating out his sister, he could safe his wife and his life
Who impeded justice by lying under oath
Who is remembered for being a traitor
David Greenglass
Provide time for the sharing of some of the student poems.
Additional Resources:
Levin, M., Pinkerson, D., & Meeropol, I. (Producers), & Meeropol, I. (Director). (2004). Heir to an
execution: A granddaughter’s story [DVD].
Roberts, S. (2001). The Brother: The untold story of atomic spy David Greenglass and how he sent his
sister, Ethel Rosenberg, to the electric chair. New York: Random House.
Source: editorial cartoon originally published in the Chicago Tribune, August 11, 1945 available online at
Wellerstein, A. (2012, June 29). Atomic Editorial Cartoon (1945) [Web log post]. Retrieved from Restricted
data: Blog about nuclear secrecy, past and present: http://nuclearsecrecy.com/blog/2012/06/29/friday-imageatomic-editorial-cartoons-1945/
Source: photo taken in 1951, available online at Wikipedia. (n.d.). Julius and Ethel Rosenberg [online
encyclopedia article]. Retrieved July 10, 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg
Popular Hollywood films during World War II
Popular Hollywood films after World War II
Cold War Case Files: The Rosenbergs
Was Justice Fairly Served?
Who were the Rosenbergs?
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg never attracted much attention living in their
three-room New York City apartment. In 1950, they were an ordinary
couple raising two young sons, Michael, age seven, and Robert, age three.
Although they both grew up in the same Jewish neighborhood on
Manhattan’s Lower East Side, Julius and Ethel did not meet until Julius
was a student at City College of New York.
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg
Ethel had been an astute student in high school and graduated early at the
age of fifteen. She enjoyed singing and acting, but never aspired to attend
college. At a New Year’s Eve dance where she was singing, Ethel met
the only love of her life. She married Julius in the summer of 1939 right
after he graduated from college with a degree in electrical engineering.
The couple had a common interest in politics. In college, Julius met many new friends who were
interested in left-wing political ideas. This was the time of the Great Depression and many Americans
were out of work and suffering economically. Julius thought that if the United States became a
communist country, there would never be another depression. Everyone would be treated fairly and
share in the nation’s resources equally.
Ethel believed in communism, too. At her job as a shipping clerk, she became upset with the working
conditions. She led 150 of her coworkers to strike against the company. Ethel was fired for her union
activities, but her experience left her convinced that a communist system of government in the United
States would benefit all workers.
For a few years before their sons were born, Julius and Ethel were active
members of the Communist Party. On occasion, they hosted party
meetings in their apartment. Ethel’s younger brother, David Greenglass,
and his wife, Ruth, also joined the political movement.
At the time, the United States was allied with the Soviet Union and Great
Britain. World War II was being fought. Many communists in the United
States supported the fight against fascism, particularly the fascist Nazi
party in Germany that was committing horrific acts against Europe’s Jews.
When David went into the army in 1943, he was proud to serve his country,
but he also felt pride in furthering the communist cause by supporting the
Soviet Union and recruiting his fellow soldiers into the Communist Party.
Julius was exempt from the army. Instead, he had an
important civilian job as an engineering inspector of
electrical equipment for the U.S. Army Signal Corps.
Before the war ended, in the spring of 1945, Julius
was fired when it was discovered he had concealed
his previous membership in the Communist Party.
What do you think of the
Rosenberg’s communist
connections?
David and Ruth Greenglass
Soviet Spies and the Atomic Bomb
During the war, the United States was racing to develop
the atomic bomb, a nuclear weapon more powerful and
destructive than any other weapon in the world. The
top-secret government project to build the atomic bomb
was code-named “The Manhattan Project.” As a
soldier, David Greenglass was assigned to Los Alamos,
a Manhattan Project lab facility in New Mexico. He
worked as a machinist and later became foreman in the
high explosives unit. David learned about the
tremendous force of an atomic bomb implosion using
Los Alamos, New Mexico
the chemical element plutonium. His unit also
produced the bomb’s detonation device called a lens. In the summer of 1945, the first bomb was
assembled at Los Alamos and was ready to be tested. The mushroom cloud from the blast rose over
the desert in New Mexico 40,000 feet and spread dangerous radioactive material into the air. Three
weeks later, two atomic bombs were dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ending
the war.
Once the war was over, the Soviet Union was eager to build its own atomic weapon. In the summer of
1949, the Soviets achieved their goal, making the United States extremely worried. It had become
clear that Joseph Stalin, the leader of the Soviet Union, would no longer be a U.S. ally. The Cold War
between the United States and the Soviet Union had started; and, for the next four decades, the two
superpowers would go head-to-head in a nuclear arms race threatening the security of the entire world.
Americans began building bomb shelters in their backyards and preparing for the next world war.
The first Soviet atomic bomb
Did Soviet scientists develop the technology to build their own atomic
bomb or were they assisted by spies in the United States? Around the
same time the Soviets were testing their first atomic bomb, agents from
the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) discovered and decoded
a report regarding the progress of the Manhattan Project. It was written
in 1944 by Klaus Fuchs, a British atomic scientist. The report was
found in the office of a Soviet official in New York. Did the Soviets
steal the report or was Klaus Fuchs a Soviet spy?
When questioned, Klaus admitted to giving information to the Soviets while working on the Manhattan
Project in the United States. He told about a man called “Raymond” to whom he passed the secret
documents. A few months later, the FBI identified Harry Gold, a chemist working in New York, as the
man known to Klaus as “Raymond.” Harry confessed as well. He also told the FBI that he took
information from a soldier at Los Alamos and delivered it to Anatoli Yakovlev, the Soviet’s head of
spy operations working in New York City. Harry didn’t know the name of the soldier at Los Alamos,
but he recalled that the soldier’s wife was named Ruth.
The FBI figured out the identity of the soldier Harry described and David Greenglass was brought into
custody. Was he part of this spy ring? Like Klaus and Harry, David was ready to talk. He confessed
to giving information about the atomic bomb to Harry Gold. Then, David implicated his brother-inlaw, Julius. David told the FBI that Julius had recruited him to become a spy and had given him the
instructions concerning his meeting with Harry Gold in New Mexico.
Julius was questioned a few days later. He called David a liar and denied working for the Soviets as a
spy. The FBI released Julius and continued to gather evidence about the spy ring. On July 17, 1950,
agents returned to the Rosenberg apartment. This time, they came with an arrest warrant. Julius was
taken away in handcuffs, leaving behind his wife, Ethel, and their two boys. He never returned.
In August, Julius was indicted for conspiracy (planning with others to act illegally) to commit
espionage (spying). This meant that a federal grand jury decided there was enough evidence for Julius
to be formally charged with a crime. He would stand trial in a federal court. His alleged crime was a
capital offense, meaning that if he were to be convicted, Julius might face death as a punishment.
However, Julius would not be tried alone. The FBI also arrested Ethel Rosenberg and Morton Sobell.
Morton was a friend to Julius in college. The FBI suspected he was also a part of the spy ring. All
three would be tried together as co-conspirators under the provisions of the Espionage Act of 1917.
The trial was set for March 1951.
In this Cold War Case File investigation, you will be learning more about the story
of the Rosenbergs. You will examine some of the trial evidence and uncover new
information that was not released until decades after the case was closed.
The Rosenberg case remains one of the most controversial in U.S. history. Your
role is to determine if justice was fairly served.
List four questions you want answered during the course of your investigation. As
you gather facts, you may revisit your list in order to revise or add additional
questions.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Cold War Case Files: The Rosenbergs
Was Justice Fairly Served?
Investigation Notes Part One – Use with Documents #1-3
Contextualization – What else was going on in the world at the time of the Rosenberg trial?
Timeline (Doc. #3)
List key events from the timeline
you think the speaker is
referencing?
Document #2
Defense
Document #1
Prosecution
Opening Statements
What persuasive phrases are
What are the main arguments
used to support these
presented in the excerpts?
arguments?
Do you think the context in which the trial is set will have an influence on its outcome? Explain
your reasoning.
Cold War Case Files: The Rosenbergs
Was Justice Fairly Served?
Investigation Notes Part Two – Use with Documents #4-6
Sourcing – Let’s examine some of the trial evidence.
How does the evidence help
or hurt the Rosenbergs?
Reasons to trust this source
Reasons to doubt this source
Doc. #4
Jell-O Box
Doc. #5
Sketches
Doc. #6
David
Greenglass
Testimony
Excerpt 1
Excerpt 2
Excerpt 3
What is your reaction to the trail evidence presented in the documents? Do you think the
Rosenbergs are guilty? Explain your reasoning.
Cold War Case Files: The Rosenbergs
Was Justice Fairly Served?
Investigation Notes Part Three – Use with Documents #7-10
Corroboration – The Rosenberg trial ended March 29, 1951. Not everyone agreed with the
jury’s verdict and the judge’s sentence. After examining the documents, choose three people
whose opinions are featured to complete the chart below.
Analysis
Point of
View/Opinion
about the
Rosenberg case
Evidence
(include
quotations)
Corroboration
Who else
supports this
opinion/point of
view?
O
R
Who disagrees
with this opinion
or point of view?
Evidence
(include
quotations)
Doc.
#___
Name:
O
R
Doc.
#___
Name:
O
R
Doc.
#___
Name:
O
R
Based on all of the evidence uncovered in your investigation, do you think justice was fairly
served in the Rosenberg case? Explain your reasoning.
Cold War Case Files: The Rosenbergs
Was Justice Fairly Served?
Investigation Notes Part Four – Use with Documents #11-13
Close Reading – New details concerning the case continue to be revealed.
Describe the
document
primary or
secondary?
What new conclusion can be
drawn from the document?
Evidence (include quotations)
Doc. # 11
Page
from
Venona
files
Doc. #12
Walter
Schneir
passage
Doc. #13
Greenglass
Interview
Does any of this new information change your response to the question, “Was justice fairly served?”
Explain why or why not.
Document #1
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
EXCERPT 3
Source: excerpts of chief prosecutor Irving Saypol’s opening statement from the Rosenberg-Sobell trial
transcript available on Douglas O. Linder’s Famous Trials website, University of Missouri-Kansas City School
of Law.
Document # 2
EXCERPT 1
EXCERPT 2
Source: excerpts of defense attorney Emanuel Bloch’s opening statement from the Rosenberg-Sobell trial
transcript available on Douglas O. Linder’s Famous Trials website, University of Missouri-Kansas City School
of Law.
Document # 3
Timeline of Events:
Arrests and Trials
Historical Context
1941 – Nazi Germany begin to implement the
“Final Solution to the “Jewish problem”
WWII
years
June 22, 1941 – Hitler invades USSR
Dec. 7, 1941 – Japan bombs Pearl Harbor and
U.S. enters WWII as Soviet ally
February 2, 1943 – Germans surrender at
Stalingrad
April 12, 1945 – President Franklin D.
Roosevelt dies and Harry S. Truman becomes
president
May 8, 1945 – Germans surrender to Allies
July 16, 1945 – First atomic bomb exploded,
Alamogordo, NM
Aug. 6, 1945 – U.S. drops A-bomb on
Hiroshima
Sept. 2, 1945 – Japan signs surrender, WWII
ends
1947 – Attorney General’s list of subversive
organizations compiled
Postwar
years
1947 – House Un-American Activities
Committee begins investigation of Communists
in Hollywood
1945
to
1950
Aug. 29, 1949 – First atomic explosion in
USSR
1950
Oct. 1949 – Communist Mao Zedong
proclaimed the establishment of the People’s
Republic of China
1950 – Congress passes Internal Security Act
giving the government the power to detain,
deport, and revoke the citizenship of suspected
subversives
Feb. 2, 1950 – Klaus Fuchs arrested in London and
confesses
Mar. 1, 1950 – Klaus Fuchs tried, found guilty, and
sentenced to 14 years
May 23, 1950 – Harry Gold arrested in Philadelphia
and confesses
Jan. 1950 – Alger Hiss, an important
government official, was accused of being a
Soviet spy and convicted of perjury
June 16, 1950 – David Greenglass arrested in NY
and confesses
Feb. 1950 – Joseph McCarthy accuses U.S.
State Dept. of harboring Communists
July 17, 1950 – Julius Rosenberg arrested in NY
June 25, 1950 – Korean War begins
Aug. 11, 1950 – Ethel Rosenberg arrested in NY
Aug. 18, 1950 – Morton Sobell arrested at Mexican
border
1951
1952
1953
Dec. 7, 1950 – Harry Gold sentencing hearing,
sentenced to 30 years
Mar. 6-28, 1951 – Trial of Rosenbergs, Morton
Sobell, and David Greenglass before Judge Irving
R. Kaufman:
 Julius Rosenberg found guilty, sentenced to
death
 Ethel Rosenberg found guilty, sentenced to
death
 Morton Sobell found guilty, sentenced to 30
years
 David Greenglass sentenced to 15 years
Nov. 8, 1951 – National Committee to Secure
Justice in the Rosenberg Case formed
Oct. 13, 1952 – Supreme Court refuses to review
Rosenberg Case
June 19, 1953 – Supreme Court reverses last-minute
stay of execution granted by Justice William O.
Douglas by 6-3 vote
1952 – First U.S. hydrogen bomb exploded
Nov. 1952 – Eisenhower elected president
July 17, 1953 – Korean ceasefire signed
June 19, 1953 – Rosenbergs executed before
sundown on the Sabbath
1954 – Army-McCarthy hearings, Senate
censures Joseph McCarthy
1954
1954 – Atomic Energy Commission revokes
Robert Oppenheimer’s security clearance due
to the Communist ideas he held in the 1930s
and his connection to Communist scientists
while working on the Manhattan Project
1960s
1960 – David Greenglass paroled
1966 – Harry Gold paroled
1969 – Morton Sobell paroled
Source: modified timeline from Schneir, W. (2010). Final verdict: What really happened in the Rosenberg
case. Brooklyn, NY: Melville House.
Document # 4
Title: U.S. vs. Julius & Ethel Rosenberg and Morton Sobell, Government Exhibit 33, Imitation
Raspberry Flavor Jell-O Box
Glossary:
facsimile – a copy or reproduction of a
document
recognition signal – secret words or
objects used by spies to identify each other
National Archives General Notes: The trial transcript shows that the prosecution introduced this facsimile JellO box to represent the recognition signal supposedly devised by Julius Rosenberg for David and Ruth
Greenglass and Harry Gold. According to trial testimony of David and Ruth Greenglass, after dinner at the
Rosenbergs' apartment in January 1945, Julius went into the kitchen with Ruth and Ethel, took an empty Jell-O
box and cut a side panel into two irregular parts. He gave one piece to Ruth, saying that the person contacting
her and David in Albuquerque [New Mexico] would identify themselves by presenting the other half. In crossexamining David Greenglass, defense attorney Bloch challenged his story by asking the flavor of the real Jell-O
box. David did not remember. Roy Cohn [member of Department of Justice’s prosecution team] is credited with
selecting raspberry for the facsimile.
Source: The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Jell-O Box Exhibit Used in the Espionage
Trial of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and Morton Sobell, 03/06/1951 - 03/29/1951, searchable by ARC Identifier
278774 at http://arcweb.archives.gov.
Document # 5
Sketch A (Left)
Title: Cross-section Sketch of Atomic Bomb,
03/12/1951
National Archives General Notes: Assistant
Prosecutor Roy Cohn moved to introduce David
Greenglass's cross-section sketch of the atomic bomb
into evidence. Defense Attorney Emanual [sic] Bloch
asked to have the sketch impounded "so that it remains
secret from the Court, the jury, and counsel." As a
result… the sketch remained sealed until ... its release in
1966.
Sketch C (Below)
Title: Sketch of Setup to Implode Tubular
Materials, 03/12/1951
Additional Information: The drawing was
delivered to Harry Gold
Sketch B
Title: Lens Mold Sketch from the Atomic Bomb
Drawn by David Greenglass, 01/1945
Source: The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Exhibits from the Julius and Ethel Rosenberg Case
File, searchable by identifier number at http://arcweb.archives.gov.
Sketch A – Government Exhibit 8, ARC Identifier 278753
Sketch B – Government Exhibit 2, ARC Identifier 278747
Sketch C – Government Exhibit 7, ARC Identifier 278752
Document # 6
David Greenglass was a key witness for the prosecution. The three excerpts below were taken
from the official trial transcript.
The first excerpt is from the direct examination of the witness (when the side that called the
witness asks the questions). The second and third excerpts are from the cross examination of the
witness (when the opposing side asks the questions).
EXCERPT 1
Q: Now will you tell us just what happened, Mr. Greenglass, after you handed this sketch and the
descriptive material concerning the atomic bomb to Rosenberg? What did he do, what did the others
there do?
A: Well, he stepped into another room and he read it and he came out and he said, “This is very good.
We ought to have this typed up immediately.” And my wife said, “We will probably have to correct
the grammar involved,” because I was more interested in writing down the technical phrases of it than
I was in correcting the grammar. So they pulled—they [the Rosenbergs] had a bridge table and they
brought it into the living room, plus a typewriter.
Q: What kind of typewriter?
A: A portable.
Q: Then what?
A: And then they set that up and each sentence was read over and typed down in correct grammatical
fashion.
Q: Who did the typing, Mr. Greenglass?
A: Ethel did the typing and Ruth and Julius and Ethel did the correction of the grammar.
EXCERPT 2
Q: Did you say anything about your doubts on the propriety (appropriateness) of what you were
doing?
A: No, I did not say anything to him [Julius] … I had a kind of hero worship and I did not want my
hero to fail … This is why I did not stop the thing after I had the doubts.
Q: Who was your hero?
A: Julius Rosenberg.
Q: I see. Now tell me, did you have doubts when you passed information to Harry Gold in
Albuquerque, New Mexico?
continued on next page…
A: I did.
Q: And did you have any doubts when you took $500 from Mr. Gold for passing that information?
A: I still had doubts.
Q: You still had doubts, but you took the money and you handed it to your wife?
A: I did.
Q: And that money was used for your house and the use of your wife, is that correct?
A: That’s right.
EXCERPT 3
Q: Well, the question is, did you lose money?
A: I did lose money?
Q: How much?
A: I lost all of the money I originally put into G. & R. (business partnership with Julius and David’s
brother), plus subsequent loss of money in salaries that I did not get.
Q: And how much did that total, in your mind?
A: Well, I don’t know.
Q: Approximately?
A: A few thousand dollars.
Q: Now, is it not a fact that you never recovered a single penny of that money?
A: I never recovered a single penny of it.
Source: excerpts of David Greenglasses’ testimony from the Rosenberg-Sobell trial transcript available on
Douglas O. Linder’s Famous Trials website, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law.
Document # 7
The Rosenberg Jury: The twelve individuals selected by both the prosecution and the defense had
the responsibility to give the defendants a fair trial by evaluating the evidence presented in court
objectively. Potential jurors were told by Judge Kaufman that “the minds of the jurors should be the
same as a white sheet of paper with nothing on it, with respect to this case, and [they could] only take
the testimony as it [came] from the witnesses and from no other source.”1 Of the twelve chosen, there
were two accountants, two auditors, and one of each of the following: a bookkeeper, an estimator, an
electrical company worker, a housewife, a store manager, a caterer, and a restaurant owner. Only one
of the jurors was female and only one was African American. The rest were white males. None of the
jurors were Jewish.
Original caption: 3/29/1951 – New York, NY – Photo shows the jury that brought in a guilty verdict against
all three defendants in the atomic spy trial is shown outside Federal Court today after their verdict had been
given to Federal Judge Kaufman. The hatless man in the center is Vincent LeBonette, of White Plains, NY, the
foreman of the jury. The only woman member of the jury is Mrs. Lisette Dammas, of the Bronx. The
defendants, Mr. and Mrs. Julius Rosenberg, and Morton Sobel [sic], will be sentenced on April 5. Judge
Kaufman thanked the jurors “for all the work you have done, for the patience you have shown in the
performance of your duty.”
Source: unknown photographer, photo taken Thursday, March 29, 1951, copyright Bettmann/Corbis/AP
Images
1
Bernett, B. (2004). The trial of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg: A primary source account. New York: The Rosen
Publishing Group.
Document # 8
Quote A
“I believe your conduct in putting into the hands of the Russians the A-bomb years before our
best scientists predicted Russia would perfect the bomb, has already caused, in my opinion, the
Communist aggression in Korea, with the resultant casualties exceeding 50,000 and who
knows but what millions more of innocent people many pay the price of your treason.”
– Judge Kaufman
Source: Passage from Judge Irving R. Kaufman’s sentencing speech on April 5, 1951 published in The
Offenders: The Case Against Legal Vengeance by Giles Playfair and Derrick Sigton, 1957.
Quote B
“I think that the data that went out in the case of the Rosenbergs was of minor value. I would
never say that publicly. Again, that is something while it is not secret, I should think it should
be kept very quiet, because irrespective of the value of that in the overall picture, the
Rosenbergs deserved to hang, and I would not like to see anything that would make people say
General Groves thinks they didn’t do much damage after all.”
– General Leslie Groves, Military Chief and Director of the Manhattan Project
Source: Statement made on April 10, 1954 at a closed meeting of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC),
later declassified, published in Radosh, R., & Milton, J. (1997). The Rosenberg File (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press. (Original work published 1983).
Quote C
“…I can only say that by immeasurably increasing the chances of atomic war the Rosenbergs
may have condemned to death tens of millions of innocent people all over the world. The
execution of two human beings is a grave matter, but even graver is the thought of the millions
of dead whose death may be directly attributable to what these spies have done… I will not
intervene in this matter."
– President Dwight Eisenhower
Source: Response to one of the last attempts by the Rosenberg’s attorney to gain clemency for his clients,
written June 19, 1953 (the day of execution), available online at Federal Bureau of Investigations. (n.d.). FBI:
The Atom Spy Case [Famous Cases and Trials]. Retrieved July 5, 2012, from http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/
history/famous-cases/the-atom-spy-case/the-atom-spy-case
Quote D
“…it was time to stop ‘kidding’ ourselves about atomic ‘secrets’ and time to stop believing
that the Soviet scientists are incompetent. The atom bomb and the hydrogen bomb were not
stolen from us by spies. Espionage played a minor role in the attainment of successful
weapons by the Soviets.”
– Dr. James Beckerley, Director of the AEC Classification Office
Source: Nine months after the execution of the Rosenbergs, Dr. James Beckerley, made this statement
according to the New York Times, March 17, 1954. Beckerley had been directly involved in helping to prepare
David Greenglass for trial, published in Alman, E. A., & Alman, D. (2010). Exoneration: The trial of Julius &
Ethel Rosenberg and Morton Sobell--Prosecutorial deceptions, suborned perjuries, anti-Semitism, and precedent
for today’s unconstitutional trials. Seattle, WA: Green Elms Press.
Document # 9
Former first-lady, Eleanor Roosevelt, commented on the Rosenberg case on December 11, 1952
in her newspaper column, My Day. Eleanor Roosevelt's My Day was a syndicated newspaper
column published from 1935 to 1962.
I am getting a considerable number of letters, all Communist-inspired so far as I can see, from people
urging me to do something to prevent the execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg who are slated to
die around January 12. They were found guilty of being members of an atom-bomb espionage ring.
This Communist-inspired campaign is certainly going to do the Rosenbergs more harm than good.
Some of the writers try to make it appear that this sentence was imposed on the Rosenbergs because
they are Jews and is intended to start anti-Jewish activities in this country. That is utter nonsense…
I don't believe in capital punishment, but we do have capital punishment in our country. I don't know if
putting the Rosenbergs to death will do us more good than if they were under a sentence of life
imprisonment, but this country operates under law and as long as we have laws we must live up to
them, making sure that the law is fairly administrated.
Without question, the authorities in our country have given careful consideration as to whether the
security of the United States would be benefitted by death or life imprisonment. Punishment of this
kind is used as a deterrent for others who might be tempted to do likewise and that also must have been
given careful consideration.
E.R.
Source: My Day digital archive, part of the Eleanor Roosevelt Papers Project supported by The George
Washington University, http://www.gwu.edu/~erpapers/myday/displaydoc.cfm?_y=1952&_f=md002402.
Document # 10
Poem A
Poem B
The Rosenbergs
Ethel and Michael, Robert and Julius
It was the end of a long, dark day of sorrow and
suffering. I was very, very weary. As the night
fell and the silence of death rose about me, I sat
down and lay my face in my hands and closed my
eyes. I heard my own voice speaking:
Crucify us, Vengeance of God
As we crucify two more Jews,
Hammer home the nails, thick through our skulls,
Crush down the thorns,
Rain red the bloody sweat
Thick and heavy, warm and wet.
We are the murderers hurling mud
We are the witchhunters, drinking blood
To us shriek five thousand blacks
Lynched without trial
And hundred thousand mobbed
The millions dead in useless war.
But this, this awful deed we do today
This senseless blasphemy of birth
Fills full the cup!
Hail Hell and glory to Damnation!
O blood-stained nation…
If We Die
You shall know, my sons, shall know
why we leave the song unsung,
the book unread, the work undone
to rest beneath the sod.
Mourn no more my sons, no more
why the lies and smears were framed,
the tears we shed, the hurt we bore
to all shall be proclaimed.
Earth shall smile, my sons, shall smile
and green above our resting place,
the killing end, the world rejoice
in brotherhood and peace.
Work and build, my sons, and build
a monument to love and joy,
to human worth, to faith we kept
for you, my sons, for you.
Ethel Rosenberg
Ossining, N.Y.
January 24, 1953
W.E.B. DuBois
Source: Millet, M. (Ed.). (1957). The Rosenbergs: Poems of the United States. New York: Sierra Press.
Document # 11
Source: one page of the decoded Venona files released in 1995 available on The Rosenberg Fund for
Children website, http://www.rfc.org/supportingmaterial.
Document # 12
The Rosenbergs were executed in the electric chair on Friday, June 19, 1953 before sundown.
Walter Schneir, a writer who has studied and written about the Rosenberg case, drew a
conclusion as to why Julius and Ethel professed their innocence right up to the time of their
death.
“But what if Julius and Ethel had confessed? Could they
have escaped execution?...My own conclusion is that it
would have been difficult, probably impossible, for them
to save themselves. The only sure-fire way would have
been for both, Ethel as well as Julius, to have agreed to
everything, including all the atomic espionage deeds they
had never done. And then for Julius to have testified at
trials and Congressional hearings against the very friends
he himself had recruited … Disclosing [information]
would have fueled the hysteria of the times and perhaps
resulted in mass pickups and incarceration in
concentration camps of tens of thousands of Communists
and other leftists under the recently enacted Internal
Security Act. The Rosenbergs could never have brought
themselves to do that.
Los Angeles Time, morning of June 20, 1953
“But many people insist that there must have been some other approach, some clever tactic that would
have led to a commutation (reduction of legal penalty), at least for Ethel. Suppose Julius had said, “I
am guilty but my wife is innocent, all of the Greenglasses’ testimony about me was true, but their
testimony against Ethel was false?” I am convinced that it would have cut no ice (had no effect). The
government was hardly about to acknowledge that much of the testimony of its primary witnesses,
David and Ruth, was spurious (not true), nor to trade the life of Ethel for a mere declaration of guilt by
Julius. The Rosenbergs understood what was demanded of them. They knew that to save themselves
they had to bite the whole bullet, to pay for their lives with the currency of the times. And that
currency was names. It was not a price they were willing to pay.
“The fact is that the Rosenbergs were trapped hopelessly. Not until now has it been possible to
comprehend how devilishly intricate the trap they were caught in was.”
Source: Schneir, W. (2010). Final verdict: What really happened in the Rosenberg case. Brooklyn, NY:
Melville House.
Document #13
Greenglass says he believes that he will be remembered by history as "a spy that turned his family in." But, he
says he doesn't care.
His story begins in the summer of 1950 when the FBI took Greenglass in for questioning. He confessed almost
immediately for spying, and quickly implicated Julius, Ethel and his own wife, Ruth. David and the Rosenbergs
were arrested. Ruth Greenglass never was charged.
"That's what I told the FBI," says Greenglass. "I said, 'If you indict my wife, you can forget it. I'll never say a
word about anybody.'"
It was quite simply his choice, he says today. So Greenglass says he turned on his sister to save his wife. "I
would not sacrifice my wife and my children for my sister. How do you like that?"
Greenglass made his choice when America was at war with communists in Korea, and in fear of the Soviet
Union, which had recently tested its own atomic bomb…
He says Julius Rosenberg recruited him to spy with a simple sales pitch: "He said, 'We have to help our ally.'"
By ally, he meant Russia. "Russia was an ally at the time, and that we have to help them with all the information
we get."
Greenglass told the FBI that he gave the Russians sketches and details on the device used to trigger a nuclear
blast. But he says he didn't enjoy being a spy.
"I was continually conscious of what's behind me. I didn't enjoy it. I just did it because I said I would," says
Greenglass.
Did he realize how dangerous it was? "I didn't really think it was, because I didn't think the Russians were an
enemy," he says.
His career in espionage came to an end soon after the war ended. Back in civilian life, Greenglass and Julius
opened a machine shop together. They argued over the business, and over Greenglass' growing disenchantment
with Communism…
He [David Greenglass] was the star witness for the prosecution at their trial, and he told the jury about his
espionage, and described the activities of Julius, Ethel and his wife, Ruth.
He testified that one evening, he and Ruth brought sketches and handwritten notes about the atom bomb to the
Rosenberg's New York apartment. After dinner, Greenglass said they set up a typewriter on a folding bridge
table in the living room, and turned his hand-written notes into a neatly-typed document for the Soviets.
Prosecutors asked Greenglass who did the typing. He said under oath that Ethel did the typing. His wife, who
also took the stand, told virtually the same story.
That story was virtually the only evidence the government had against Ethel Rosenberg. But prosecutors argued
that Ethel's typing proved she was an active participant in the spy ring. After the trial, they admitted that without
the typing testimony, they could never have convinced the jury that Ethel was anything more than the wife of a
spy - and that's not a crime.
Greenglass stuck to his story for 50 years. But now, he has a different recollection of that night at the apartment.
"Julius and Ethel were there, and I think my wife was there, and myself. And he asked me to write up some
stuff, which I did, and then he had it typed. And I don't know who typed it, frankly. And to this day, I can't even
remember that the typing took place," says Greenglass, who admits he has no memory of Ethel typing the notes.
"But somebody typed it. Now I'm not sure who it was. And I don't even think it was done while we were there."
Why did Greenglass lie on the stand? He now says Roy Cohn, an assistant prosecutor in the Rosenberg case,
made him do it. Cohn went on to become Joseph McCarthy's right-hand man.
Greenglass says that Cohn encouraged him to testify that he saw Ethel type up the notes. And he says he didn't
realize at the time the importance of that testimony.
But the jury knew how important it was, and found both Julius and Ethel Rosenberg guilty of conspiring to
commit espionage. Judge Irving Kaufman imposed the death penalty.
Fifty years later, we know a lot more than anyone could have known in 1951. For example, we know that much
of what David Greenglass said about Julius Rosenberg is true. It has been verified by other, independent,
sources, all of which confirm that Julius Rosenberg was a Soviet spy. We also know that there is very little, if
any, evidence that implicates his wife, Ethel, in any illegal activity…
Up until the last minute, the authorities were willing to commute [change] the death sentences [to a lesser
punishment] if the Rosenbergs cooperated and named names. But they refused and were executed on June 19,
1953 - without ever breaking their silence.
Why did Greenglass think Julius and Ethel maintained their silence to the end? "One word: stupidity," says
Greenglass, who holds his own sister responsible for her own death.
But many saw the Rosenbergs as victims, and there was great sympathy for Michael and Robert, their two
young sons - orphaned by the testimony of their own uncle.
Greenglass hasn't seen the Rosenberg children since the trial. What would he say to them today? "I would say
I'm sorry that your parents are dead," he says.
Would he also apologize for the role he played in their execution?
"No, I can't say that. That's not true," says Greenglass. "I had no idea they're going to give them the death
sentence."
In his closing remarks, the Rosenbergs' lawyer said, "Any man who will testify against his own flesh and blood,
his own sister, is repulsive, revolting."
Does Greenglass have a clean conscience? "I sleep very well," he says.
He has never visited his sister's grave, but he admits that he has been haunted to some degree by his experience
50 years ago.
"But every time I'm haunted by it, or say something, my wife says 'Look, we're still alive. We have our kids.
Everything's OK.'"
Source: Edited transcript from the 60 Minutes videotaped interview, Landes, J. & Rosenbaum, M. (Producers).
(2001). The Traitor [Television series episode]. 60 Minutes II. New York: CBS News. Retrieved from
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7409384n, full eleven minute video can be viewed at this address
courtesy of CBS News, 2009.
Name ________________________________________________________ Date _______________
Cold War Case Files: The Rosenbergs
Was Justice Fairly Served?
The poems you analyzed in this investigation written by W.E.B. DuBois and Ethel Rosenberg came
from a collection of poetry about the case titled: Rosenbergs: Poems of the United States. Create
your own poem to add to the collection by following the directions below.
1. Choose one significant person related to the case.
2. Think about how this person participated and influenced the case and how he/she should be
remembered.
3. Keep in mind your answer to the question, “Was justice fairly served?” to set the tone of your
poem (look back at Document 10 for examples).
4. Use the format below to write your poem. Make minor adjustments to the format to add your
own personal touch!
Line 1 – first and last name
Line 2 – four adjective describing the person
Line 3 – relative (son, daughter, husband, wife, etc.) of …
Line 4 – who lived during … (add something here about the historical context)
Line 5 – who searched for …
Line 6 – who (learned or taught) …
Line 7 – who (add a past-tense verb) justice by … (add something here that reflects your
answer to the essential question, “Was justice fairly served?”)
Line 8 – who is remembered for …
Line 9 – first and last name
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
Name ________________________________________________________ Date _______________
Cold War Case Files: The Rosenbergs
Was Justice Fairly Served?
Directions: Choose the best response to each of questions below:
1. The Rosenbergs were tried, convicted, and executed for conspiracy to commit espionage at the
height of Cold War fears in the United States. Which of the following events helped to escalate
Cold War fears in American society in the early 1950s?
a. The Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor
b. Joseph McCarthy’s accusation that there were communists in the U.S. State
Department
c. The construction of the Berlin Wall
d. Joseph Stalin assuming leadership of the Soviet Union
2. The release of the Venona documents in 1995 supports which of the following conclusions
about the Rosenberg case?
a. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were not involved in a Soviet spy ring.
b. Julius confessed to the crime of conspiracy to commit espionage before execution,
but it was too late for him to spare Ethel’s life.
c. The sketches David Greenglass recreated for the prosecution were completely
fabricated.
d. Julius had been involved in spying for the Soviets, but Ethel was merely the wife of
a spy.
Name ________________________________________________________ Date _______________
Cold War Case Files: The Rosenbergs
Was Justice Fairly Served?
Poster text: "I had to sell out my own
girl--so would you! I was under the
toughest orders a guy could get! I stood
by and watched my brother slugged...I
started a riot that ran red with
terror...I learned every dirty rule in
their book--and had to use them-because I was a communist--but I WAS
A COMMUNIST FOR THE FBI."
Source: image republished by Al Filreis, University
of Pennsylvania, online course syllabus for “The
Literature & Culture of the American 1950s,”
http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/commiefor-fbi.html
** In 1951, the documentary movie, “I was a
Communist for the F.B.I.” was nominated for an
Academy Award. In the movie, a federal agent
goes undercover to expose a communist spy ring.
Part A
Explain how the popularity of the movie’s theme reflects the political, social, and cultural
climate of the United States at the time.
Part B
In what way(s) did the political, social, and cultural climate of the United States “set the stage”
for the Julius and Ethel Rosenberg trial in 1951? How do you think the Rosenberg case was
influenced by the political, social, and/or cultural events of the early 1950s? Be sure to include
evidence to support your historical thinking?