NationStates Jolt Archive

An old friend of theirs confirmed that he and the Rosenbergs were spies. Will the left in America stop thier idiotic whining about frame jobs and innocence about these traitors now?

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-radosh17-2008sep17,0,490961.story

"Julius and ethel Rosenberg were executed 55 years ago, on June 19, 1953. But last week, they were back in the headlines when Morton Sobell, the co-defendant in their famous espionage trial, finally admitted that he and his friend, Julius, had both been Soviet agents.

It was a stunning admission; Sobell, now 91 years old, had adamantly maintained his innocence for more than half a century."

"The Rosenbergs were Soviet spies, and not minor ones either. Not only did they try their best to give the Soviets top atomic secrets from the Manhattan Project, they succeeded in handing over top military data on sonar and on radar that was used by the Russians to shoot down American planes in the Korean and Vietnam wars. That's long been known, and Sobell confirmed it again last week."

That's a mighty big strawman you're taking a swing at.

thanks for posting this. i had missed the story.

How many of those labeled on the "left" in the US even know who the Rosenbergs are?

Actually the guy only admitted to Julius being a spy, and the trial was dodgy anyway.

Sorry, what's your point?

It's not like the betrayal of nuclear secrets was a bad thing. A militarily powerful and untouchable USA would not have been a fun thing.

That, and that other spies weren't executed for their involvement and that Soviets even said that they didn't get any useful information from the Rosenburgs. It just makes their executions seem like a hysterical witch hunt.

Two convicted spies were spies. Damn that's a shocker. Is the pope also catholic? Do bears really shit in the woods?

Two convicted spies were spies. Damn that's a shocker. Is the pope also catholic? Do bears really shit in the woods?

Indeed. This is old news, everyone knows they were Soviet spies. Only Andaras would defend them.

Julius was a spy. Ethel was not. She did know that Julius was spying and failed to turn informer. This has been known for ages, although having Sobell fess up to it is mildly newsworthy, to the handful of people who care about that case. It was, after all, years before I was born, and I'm not very young.

Sorry, what's your point?

It's not like the betrayal of nuclear secrets was a bad thing. A militarily powerful and untouchable USA would not have been a fun thing.

That, and that other spies weren't executed for their involvement and that Soviets even said that they didn't get any useful information from the Rosenburgs. It just makes their executions seem like a hysterical witch hunt.

Of course they didn't say anything, it makes the US look bad. And yes that is a bad thing. The Soveit Union would not have been as bold as it was if they didn't have nukes, and the same reason NATO didn't push them out of Germany.

Julius was a spy. Ethel was not. She did know that Julius was spying and failed to turn informer. This has been known for ages, although having Sobell fess up to it is mildly newsworthy, to the handful of people who care about that case. It was, after all, years before I was born, and I'm not very young.

Ethel WAS a spy and knew what she and her husband were doing. She handled many of the document transfers and Venona proved, along with Khrushchev's memoirs, that she was a part of the operation.

http://www.wilddamntexan.com/kids/demotivators/Strawman.jpg

How about that?

Sorry, what's your point?

It's not like the betrayal of nuclear secrets was a bad thing. A militarily powerful and untouchable USA would not have been a fun thing.

That, and that other spies weren't executed for their involvement and that Soviets even said that they didn't get any useful information from the Rosenburgs. It just makes their executions seem like a hysterical witch hunt.

So... if I were to sell a nuclear weapon to North Korea or Al-Qaeda that would be fine because a militarily powerful and untouchable USA would not be a fun thing?

It's not like the betrayal of nuclear secrets was a bad thing.

I don't know about you, but giving nuclear secrets to Josef Stalin seems like a bad idea. This was the guy who believed a world war against the capitalist nations was inevitable and whose inner circle was basically powerless to oppose him until he died. Hell, he was only a few years away at most from another nasty round of purges.

Perhaps that's why Beria did away with him...although that's not necessarily anything provable, it seems kind of likely.

So... if I were to sell a nuclear weapon to North Korea or Al-Qaeda that would be fine because a militarily powerful and untouchable USA would not be a fun thing?

Al-Qaeda probably wouldn't be too good an idea, about as bad as putting it in the hands of any of the end of days cults. They don't have anything to lose.

North Korea on the other hand, has North Korea to lose. The leadership may be all puffed up about its divinity, but nobody truly stupid ever rises to power, and only the truly stupid would think they can win a nuclear exchange.

Of course they didn't say anything, it makes the US look bad. And yes that is a bad thing. The Soveit Union would not have been as bold as it was if they didn't have nukes, and the same reason NATO didn't push them out of Germany.

Wait. Are you advocating a nuclear war between the then Soviet Union and NATO if the Soviet Union couldn't retaliate?

Two convicted spies were spies. Damn that's a shocker. Is the pope also catholic? Do bears really shit in the woods?
I have it on good authority that water is also often wet.

I do not believe there were all that many people who were convinced the Rosenbergs were not spies apart from conspiracy theorists who disbelieve anything the government says as a matter of course.

I, of course, think executing them was unnecessary, but that's because I do not believe the death penalty should ever be used.

It's not like the betrayal of nuclear secrets was a bad thing.
Actually, by definition, it is.

A militarily powerful and untouchable USA would not have been a fun thing.
Congratulations! You're one of the insane people on earth who believe that we should SPREAD nuclear weapons and capabilities to pshycotic dictators of dysatopian evil totalitarian militaristic states just to weaken the USA!
:rolleyes:

Ethel WAS a spy and knew what she and her husband were doing. She handled many of the document transfers and Venona proved, along with Khrushchev's memoirs, that she was a part of the operation.

....or not, depending on how the evidence is weighed. What has been made public about the Venona Project suggests that Ethel may have typed notes for Julius. The only corroboration that I'm aware of is the testimony of the Greenglasses, which doesn't count because they were lying, and Krushchev, who had no direct knowledge of the Rosenbergs' spying but heard about them from Stalin. Stalin may or may not have been truthful about the Rosenbergs, just like everything else he ever said.

All of this is, as the op-ed by the bitter old man says, a preponderance of evidence, but not proof sufficient for a court of law. Ethel was probably a spy. Her trial was certainly a miscarriage of justice.

Actually, by definition, it is.

Indeed. Nuclear technology is quite dangerous, and therefore should be controlled and kept from those who could not use it safely.

The Soviet Union was bound to discover them sooner or later, however, regardless of the Rosenbergs.

Congratulations! You're one of the insane people on earth who believe that we should SPREAD nuclear weapons and capabilities to pshycotic dictators of dysatopian evil totalitarian militaristic states just to weaken the USA!
:rolleyes:
I do believe you're overstating things a tad, considering that's not what he said at all. I believe his statement meant more that he felt an untouchable U.S. superpower might potentially start walking over countries willy nilly, rather like what we do now, only in a much worse way. Considering how often we have politicians who would gladly be dictators if they could only get the power, it may very well have been likely.

What's wrong with spying?

Congratulations! You're one of the insane people on earth who believe that we should SPREAD nuclear weapons and capabilities to pshycotic dictators of dysatopian evil totalitarian militaristic states just to weaken the USA!
:rolleyes:

As opposed to the insane people who want an untouchable and militaristic USA to destroy countries it doesn't like, or just for kicks, whenever it feels like it because it has the bomb and no one else does?

Currently, the most untrustworthy country in regards to nuclear capability is the United States. We're the only country to use nuclear weapons, and we used them on civilians.

Currently, the most untrustworthy country in regards to nuclear capability is the United States. We're the only country to use nuclear weapons, and we used them on civilians.

To be fair, whoever got them first would have used them anyway, and probably picked a city as a target. Military formations of the time, and the crappy accuracy strategic bombers had, would have meant aiming at something smaller would have been a waste.

Also, again to be fair, WWII was an era where total war became an accepted concept. Used to be it was just soldiers you fought, and you collected the city/castle/etc after that. By WWII, armies were supported by massive civilian infrastructure. Factories, farms, mines, cities, and the people that made them work of course, all of these were potential sources of support for an army of the scale seen in WWII, and as a result, those things became legitimate targets rather than collateral damage.

The firebombings of Dresden, Tokyo and numerous other major cities during the war created massive civilian casualties, some of them even higher than that of Fatman and Little Boy combined, but they don't generate as much controversy.

In a total war scenario, civilians, especially those connected to war supporting industries, which is almost all of them, often become legitimate targets.

Don't forget the issue that the destructive power of nuclear weapons could not be comprehended until they were used at least once. The U.S. only gets the short stick on that because they were the first to invent them. Another nation would have said short stick had they invented them first.

Just be glad only we invented them at the time and that they weren't simultaneously invented by several countries. Things could have been far worse.

That's a mighty big strawman you're taking a swing at.
They are back in stock for a pittance due to Halloween.

An old friend of theirs confirmed that he and the Rosenbergs were spies. Will the left in America stop thier idiotic whining about frame jobs and innocence about these traitors now?

Will who stop doing what now?

I'm waiting for the day when people like you stop throwing around bullshit terms like "the left" as if it actually meant something. Will be waiting a long, long time.

An old friend of theirs confirmed that he and the Rosenbergs were spies. Will the left in America stop thier idiotic whining about frame jobs and innocence about these traitors now?

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-radosh17-2008sep17,0,490961.story

"Julius and ethel Rosenberg were executed 55 years ago, on June 19, 1953. But last week, they were back in the headlines when Morton Sobell, the co-defendant in their famous espionage trial, finally admitted that he and his friend, Julius, had both been Soviet agents.

It was a stunning admission; Sobell, now 91 years old, had adamantly maintained his innocence for more than half a century."

"The Rosenbergs were Soviet spies, and not minor ones either. Not only did they try their best to give the Soviets top atomic secrets from the Manhattan Project, they succeeded in handing over top military data on sonar and on radar that was used by the Russians to shoot down American planes in the Korean and Vietnam wars. That's long been known, and Sobell confirmed it again last week."

The answer to any question which begins with "Will the left in America stop their idiotic whining about..." will always be "No. No, they won't." The left is full of idiots and whiners, so idiotic whining is their forte.

The answer to any question which begins with "Will the left in America stop their idiotic whining about..." will always be "No. No, they won't." The left is full of idiots and whiners, so idiotic whining is their forte.

Whereas the Right in America are sensible and will never whine about anything.

CoughcoughSarahPalinSexismcoughcough

Will who stop doing what now?

I'm waiting for the day when people like you stop throwing around bullshit terms like "the left" as if it actually meant something. Will be waiting a long, long time.

The answer to any question which begins with "Will the left in America stop their idiotic whining about..." will always be "No. No, they won't." The left is full of idiots and whiners, so idiotic whining is their forte.

See? Maybe I'll have a better game of waiting until the next time.

In this case it was just 1 post and less than three hours.

The answer to any question which begins with "Will the left in America stop their idiotic whining about..." will always be "No. No, they won't." The left is full of idiots and whiners, so idiotic whining is their forte.

But... but isn't that...I mean, aren't you...?

To spell it out, I'm trying to imply that you yourself are whining, thus implying hypocrisy on your part.

An old friend of theirs confirmed that he and the Rosenbergs were spies. Will the left in America stop thier idiotic whining about frame jobs and innocence about these traitors now?

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-radosh17-2008sep17,0,490961.story

"Julius and ethel Rosenberg were executed 55 years ago, on June 19, 1953. But last week, they were back in the headlines when Morton Sobell, the co-defendant in their famous espionage trial, finally admitted that he and his friend, Julius, had both been Soviet agents.

It was a stunning admission; Sobell, now 91 years old, had adamantly maintained his innocence for more than half a century."

"The Rosenbergs were Soviet spies, and not minor ones either. Not only did they try their best to give the Soviets top atomic secrets from the Manhattan Project, they succeeded in handing over top military data on sonar and on radar that was used by the Russians to shoot down American planes in the Korean and Vietnam wars. That's long been known, and Sobell confirmed it again last week."

They were murdered by the state at the height of Mc Cathyism. I don't know what to believe - and frankly, it doesn't matter.
There were plenty of spies on both sides up to dirty tricks.
They should never have been electrocuted by the state, whether they were Communist spies or not. A great argument agaist Stalin was that he murdered his opposition with show trials. Killing the Rosenbergs gave the Communist Party plenty of ammunition to throw back.
The US is second only to China for state executions. That's a chilling statistic!

Don't forget the issue that the destructive power of nuclear weapons could not be comprehended until they were used at least once.
People figured it out after Trinity, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki still got nuked.

.
Wait. Are you advocating a nuclear war between the then Soviet Union and NATO if the Soviet Union couldn't retaliate?

Damn straight I am.

They were murdered by the state at the height of Mc Cathyism. I don't know what to believe - and frankly, it doesn't matter.
There were plenty of spies on both sides up to dirty tricks.
They should never have been electrocuted by the state, whether they were Communist spies or not. A great argument agaist Stalin was that he murdered his opposition with show trials. Killing the Rosenbergs gave the Communist Party plenty of ammunition to throw back.
The US is second only to China for state executions. That's a chilling statistic!

The death penalty is a good thing for two reasons, one, it prevents repeat offenders, and two, it fights prision over crowding. SO what if a few innocent people get killed. You get convicted of killing someone execpt in self defence, and you should get killed.


People figured it out after Trinity, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki still got nuked.

Do you have any relatives that fought in the British or American millitaries in WW2? I do. My grandpa was going to be in the first wave of the invasion of japan. His unit was facing an expected 80% death rate by the end of 2 weeks. If we didn;t drop the bomb, He wouldn't be alive, and neither would my mom, and by extentsion, me.

Do you have any relatives that fought in the British or American millitaries in WW2? I do. My grandpa was going to be in the first wave of the invasion of japan. His unit was facing an expected 80% death rate by the end of 2 weeks. If we didn't drop the bomb, He wouldn't be alive, and neither would my mom, and by extentsion, me.

Plus it would've likely resulted in de facto Soviet control over a lot more of Asia and Europe. I have no doubt they would've taken advantage of Downfall to push their luck against the weakened and depleted Allied armed forces.

Plus it would've likely resulted in de facto Soviet control over a lot more of Asia and Europe. I have no doubt they would've taken advantage of Downfall to push their luck against the weakened and depleted Allied armed forces.

Exactly.

Do you have any relatives that fought in the British or American millitaries in WW2? I do. My grandpa was going to be in the first wave of the invasion of japan. His unit was facing an expected 80% death rate by the end of 2 weeks. If we didn;t drop the bomb, He wouldn't be alive, and neither would my mom, and by extentsion, me.

Yes, I'm sure the U.S. would have invaded a country that was just about to surrender. And even if there was an invasion
SO what if a few innocent people get killed.

If we didn;t drop the bomb, He wouldn't be alive, and neither would my mom, and by extentsion, me.
And the problem is.... ?

Yes, I'm sure the U.S. would have invaded a country that was just about to surrender. And even if there was an invasion

Just about to surrender my ass. Proof? Give me one official document that states that.

And the problem is.... ?

Its me.

Its me.
It's not me :D

It's not me :D

Did either of your grandpas fight in the Pacific?

My grandparents were too old, and my parents too young. I had an uncle who flew in the Pacific: he was in charge of delivering the beer (I'm not making this up) so he was extraordinarily popular everywhere he went.

My grandparents were too old, and my parents too young. I had an uncle who flew in the Pacific: he was in charge of delivering the beer (I'm not making this up) so he was extraordinarily popular everywhere he went.

Never knew that existed as a job. :eek:
Wonder if that's possible today....

And yeah, Rosenbergs, spies, old news.
There were spies all over the place.

Never knew that existed as a job. :eek:
Wonder if that's possible today....
He was a "supply officer", his plane might be loaded up with all kinds of stuff, but the pilots tended to specialized, and he usually got the alcohol loads (almost entirely beer, a little hard stuff for the officers' clubs).

He was a "supply officer", his plane might be loaded up with all kinds of stuff, but the pilots tended to specialized, and he usually got the alcohol loads (almost entirely beer, a little hard stuff for the officers' clubs).

Very nice. But yes, I heard that term, "supply officer" before. Just didn't know there was specified alcohol runs.

Just about to surrender my ass. Proof? Give me one official document that states that.
They're in Japanese and not on the Internet, but a quick search finds that they are mentioned in Frank, Richard B. (1999). Downfall: the End of the Imperial Japanese Empire. New York: Penguin. ISBN 0141001461.

Its me.
Well, I suppose that's
SO what if a few innocent people get killed.

People figured it out after Trinity, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki still got nuked.

No.

I'm talking about everyone, not just the few who witnessed the secret testing. There's a significant difference between watching something on a film and seeing it happen, and truly understanding it.

The radiation effects, for instance, were not even remotely fully understood until some time afterwards.

This is especially true for the bombers who delivered the bombs. They knew their trade, and as far as they were concerned, a bomb with the power that nukes have was ridiculous in their mind, so they probably doubted it would truly be that bad, no matter what they saw on a movie.

No.

I'm talking about everyone, not just the few who witnessed the secret testing. There's a significant difference between watching something on a film and seeing it happen, and truly understanding it.

So how did the two billion or so people who didn't see Hiroshima and Nagasaki get bombed understand it?

Edit: Also, the weaponeer on the Enola Gay had personally witnessed the Trinity test. You can't really plead ignorance on his part.

So how did the two billion or so people who didn't see Hiroshima and Nagasaki get bombed understand it?

Edit: Also, the weaponeer on the Enola Gay had personally witnessed the Trinity test. You can't really plead ignorance on his part.

You do realize you're playing a semantics game here, right? Nuclear tests are not equivalent to a nuclear detonation on a city. It was necessary that we fully understand the cost of using such a weapon, and unfortunately the only way that could happen is through its first use.

As I said before, be very glad that it only happened the way it did, that one nation invented it before everyone else, and that said nation would proceed to never utilize them again after the effects were truly understood.

For the bomber, I was not claiming that he was ignorant. I was claiming that he failed to understand what he witnessed, what it meant for an actual city, for thousands upon thousands of real people.

So why a civilian target and not a military target?

So why a civilian target and not a military target?

Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets, in that they were major centers of production. In addition, the practice of bombing a large number of civilians was no different from the firebombing and terror bombing that had been practiced the entire war. The idea was for psychological effect.

Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets, in that they were major centers of production. In addition, the practice of bombing a large number of civilians was no different from the firebombing and terror bombing that had been practiced the entire war. The idea was for psychological effect.

So it was basically terrorism.

So it was basically terrorism.

In a sense, yes.

You won't find me disagreeing with you on an ethical standpoint. All I'm trying to say is that the invention of nuclear weapons was inevitable, and they WOULD be used at least once before we got it in our heads just how destructive they are, and that we're lucky--damned lucky--it happened in perhaps the best way possible.

Think of the potential chaos had the U.S. chose not to use it and then found themselves using it in, say, a conflict with the Soviet Union just a few years down the road when they first invented their own bombs? How much worse would that have been? Not as bad as a nuclear war now, but it still would have been horrendously devastating.

It's a little bit of a sick way to look at this, true, but it makes sense.

Damn straight I am.

Nice to know that you're really no better than the likes of the fascists. Stalin killed 20 million of his own people in purges and gulags, and this was while Germany was so very close to moving onto Moscow, but that didn't mean they didn't stop fighting throwing men and materials into the butchery of Stalingrad. How many do you think your nuclear war would have killed?

And more than that, given the grief America has given the world over the last 50 years, why shouldn't the converse apply then. Why shouldn't America, have been subjected to nuclear bombardment if it couldn't retaliate?

That's right, I'm holding America to the same standards of the Soviet Union. Both gave the world plenty of grief even without including their pissing match with one another. After all, it's not like the Americans didn't do their own ethnic cleansing, slave trades or wars of conquests well before the existence of the Soviet Union.

SO what if a few innocent people get killed.

So let's start with you then.

I agree that Binary is innocent Non Aligned, but be gentle - he's too young to die!

What if they were spies? They should not have been executed. Mind you, if they hadn't been, one of the greatest American novels, The Book of Daniel, would not have written.

In a sense, yes.

You won't find me disagreeing with you on an ethical standpoint. All I'm trying to say is that the invention of nuclear weapons was inevitable, and they WOULD be used at least once before we got it in our heads just how destructive they are, and that we're lucky--damned lucky--it happened in perhaps the best way possible.

Think of the potential chaos had the U.S. chose not to use it and then found themselves using it in, say, a conflict with the Soviet Union just a few years down the road when they first invented their own bombs? How much worse would that have been? Not as bad as a nuclear war now, but it still would have been horrendously devastating.

It's a little bit of a sick way to look at this, true, but it makes sense.

Oh, it makes sense. And I agree with you. I hate every part of the world that makes it so that I have to agree with you, but I have to agree with you. Anyways, I was bored of that line of discussion anyways, so it's good that you managed to wrap it up so succinctly.

What if they were spies? They should not have been executed. Mind you, if they hadn't been, one of the greatest American novels, The Book of Daniel, would not have written.

I think they were going to wind up dead no matter what.