Customer Reviews

The Brother: The Untold Story of Atomic Spy David Greenglass and How He Sent His Sister, Ethel Rosenberg, to the Electric Chair

5 star:		(18)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

In 1953, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed for passing information about the atomic bomb to the Russians. They remain the only Americans to get the death penalty for spying in peacetime, which indicates the extraordinary nature of their case. Current spies might expect prison at worst, and possibly a country club prison at that. The Cold War is over, and we have new fears, but an examination of the fifty-year-old case is welcome. _The Brother: The Untold Story of Atomic Spy David Greenglass and How He Sent His Sister, Ethel Rosenberg, to the Electric Chair_ (Random House) by Sam Roberts gives a surprising, fresh view of the case. Roberts can rightly claim that this is an "untold story" because after years of persistence, he was able to find Greenglass, living under a different identity, and conduct interviews. True to the nature of a disreputable stoolpigeon, Greenglass started singing for a fee.

Greenglass, a member of the Communist Party, somehow got assigned to work on the Manhattan Project after being drafted in 1943. His brother-in-law Julius Rosenberg persuaded Greenglass's wife Ruth to talk to him about supplying atomic secrets, and David agreed. He got paid for the information. When the FBI nailed him, he was ready to implicate Julius. When Ruth implicated Ethel, days before the trial, David changed his testimony to corroborate his wife's, always cooperating in order to keep Ruth from getting charged. Playing the wife card again, the feds attempted to get information on Julius's contacts by charging Ethel and then holding the death penalty over her. The idea was that Julius would sing in order to keep Ethel alive for their two young sons. This seems immoral today, and indeed, it is now illegal to use the death penalty as coercion towards cooperation. The eagerness that the feds had to execute the Rosenbergs proved to be a gigantic misjudgment. Communist sympathizers the world over took advantage of the Rosenbergs' plight, especially of the electrocution looming over Ethel. The Rosenbergs were more valuable as martyrs than any information about bombs which Greenglass had stolen.

It is certainly controversial that Greenglass is getting paid for his participation in interviews, but the new information seems worth it. Greenglass had no say in what was going to be written in the book, and could not tell what was to be in it until it was printed; the picture Roberts paints is far from flattering. Remarkably, his wife did not know of his participation in the interviews before the book was published. Roberts has gone to other previously unavailable sources as well, and the story is fascinating. There were serious mistakes made in the trial, well detailed here, and as a result the controversy about the outcome will never be settled. Roberts often gives details that aptly summarize the era; for instance, an FBI account of Ethel's arrest says that she "made a typical Communist remonstrance, demanding a warrant and the right to call an attorney." There are other candidates for the nomination of "Trial of the Century," but it is hard to top this one. If it does not measure up to a laudable presentation of gathering of evidence, prosecution, and execution, and was eventually more comfort to our enemies than to ourselves, we might, living under the threat of terrorist attacks fifty years later, learn useful lessons here about excessive government zeal.

Most of the reviewers of this book have commented on the fact that Greenglass was paid for the interviews that the book is based on. But I wonder if any of them read closely enough to notice that the payment is in the form of a share in the profits of the book. [Page 472: "He agreed to cooperate fully on a book in return for a share of the proceeds."] Thus, a portion of every dollar you spend on this book goes to David Greenglass.

That being the case, it might be better to read it at the library! :)

When thinking of David Greenglass and the hatred his actions have invoked for half a century it seems reasonable to ask, as the author does, why is David Kaczynski who turned in his brother, better known as the Unabomber, not reviled? He knew his brother was likely to receive capital punishment for what he had done. Or how about Barbara Walker who turned in her husband, which then led to her son, being convicted as well, for being willing suppliers of information to the USSR. The Walkers are hardly serving time in a so-called, "Club Fed", and last I read the Unabomber will either die in prison of old age or execution.

The title of Sam Roberts' book is certainly accurate if incomplete. Testimony by David Greenglass absolutely placed his sister and brother in law in the midst of a scenario that would guaranty their conviction. But to be fair, his wife Ruth did not do the Rosenbergs any favors when she testified, and the Rosenbergs and their defense council made decisions that ensured their conviction as well.

Greenglass made it very clear that his wife came before anyone in his thinking, including his mother and father. When he came under FBI scrutiny it can hardly be considered a surprise that he either told some things that were true, or when faced with an alternative, he would place the blame on his sister or brother in law. The Rosenbergs did virtually nothing to exonerate themselves or cooperate to ensure they would not be subject to capital punishment. As both husband and wife took the stand and then exercised their right to not answer questions, which may have served to self-incriminate them, when from a practical standpoint answering yes would have done no more harm. It may be a constitutional protection, but I think juries take it as an admission of guilt. And what type of verdict could be expected when the defense lawyer, while arguing that the information at issue was not important, then simultaneously asks that it be impounded to protect its confidentiality?

Ethel Rosenberg probably did not deserve the punishment she received. I can only argue probably, for why would a woman who is innocent with 2 young children take positions, which were stated as first, final, and never subject to change? And how could a husband let his wife follow him to the chair? Many of the players in this issue were portrayed as young, idealistic, and foolish. I cannot accept that either of the Rosenbergs believed they would be found innocent. And further, rolling the dice on the sentence Ethel would receive in the midst of a country coming out of one war and was then engaged in Korea against the "ally" they helped, seems to be stupidity not a calculated risk.

The entire furor over David Greenglass and the degree to which he lied is of great interest to me, as people lying and making deals to mitigate their own punishment is hardly unique. Even if he believed with 100 percent certainty that his sister would be executed it was a choice he never even pondered, he and his family came first, period. Virtually any scenario a person may use with immediate family and heinous behavior again makes what Greenglass did less than unique. Parents killing their children, children their parents, spouses each other, it happens all too frequently. And there is a difference between speaking against someone and actually taking their life in person with one's own hands.

David Greenglass is not a person I would like to know much less be related to. The same comment holds true for his wife and both of the Rosenbergs. This book may add additional information to the historical record just as the judge at the Rosenberg trial will shed more light in 2026 when his papers are made public. I don't find anything sympathetic about either of these couples. One was willing to do and say whatever was needed to minimize their own punishment, and the other did little or nothing to change their fate.

As defined at the trial, the level of activity for guilt was not terribly high, so while of the four involved their actions may have differed widely, the law made little distinction. I don't see any way to demonstrate that Julius Rosenberg was innocent, and his wife was certainly not absolutely ignorant of his activities.

The title of my comments comes from a game that is part of game theory. It revolves around the actions of what people involved in the same crime should do for the benefit of all concerned, as opposed to what they actually do. These circumstances and the resulting behavior are fascinating to read about.

If Bernard Malamud wrote history, he would have sounded like Sam Roberts. With David Greenglass at the center of this version of the oft-told tale of the theft of our atomic secrets during World War II, Roberts writes an engaging and wonderfully droll book that I had trouble putting down. New revelations from the Venona decryptions as well as the NKGB archives and othe declassified documents Roberts sought and found mesh well with the story of very ordinary people from the Lower East Side committing extraordinary crimes that shook the nation.

Sam Roberts kicks off what should be a series of 50th anniversary second and third looks at the Rosenberg Trial. His book opens interesting and helpful new pages on the Rosenberg saga. "The Brother" invites further review of, not the guilt or innocence, because that is now clearly established, but the appropriateness of the penalties.

Roberts fills in many gaps left by David Greenglass's silence over the years and explains events in the context of the time, informed by fifty years of retrospection, research, and disclosure. (As we go through another period of demonization of our adversaries, perhaps this is even more timely a perspective.) He presents David Greenglass faithfully and with ample insight into the witness's psyche and motives. Greenglass comes off as no hero, and evolves as one who was more often careless with the truth than not, but as the central figure that he was in a web of espionage that included Julius and probably Ethel Rosenberg.

Probably without trying to do so, Roberts presents a very powerful argument against the death penalty and helps secure a proper place in the history of American jurisprudence for Judge Kaufman and the prosecutorial cheerleader, Roy Cohn.

Many people talked with Roberts as the book was prepared, and their comments and observations make the book all the more interesting and important.

Author Sam Roberts has done a thorough job of telling the story of David Greenglass, so one is mystified at why he felt compelled to demonize his subject. Readers are fully capable of drawing their own conclusions about Greenglass, brother of Ethel Rosenberg. Roberts has given us more than enough material to sift through, his narrative skills are impressive. Actually one shouldn't be surprised at Roberts' bias, his contempt for Greenglass is obvious in the book's subtitle. Editorializing about Greenglass (who sold atomic bomb information to the Russians in 1945 while serving in the military at Los Alamos) should have been reserved for an afterword. This, along with sometimes excessive detail, are rather large blemishes on an otherwise exemplary work. Roberts provides a rich account of growing up a poor Jewish immigrant in 1930's New York, the U.S. during World War II and the homefront during the Cold War. But I'd have appreciated developing my own distaste for Greenglass, had that been my choice. Indeed it's possible to feel some sympathy for Greenglass and his plight.
This is, nonetheless an important work on the Rosenbergs, American Communist ideals and the curious business of spying.

This is by far the best-written and most thoroughly investigated book ever written about the Rosenberg case. It completes a circle started with Ilene Philipson's excellent 1988 study, "Ethel Rosenberg: Beyond the Myths." Sam Roberts proves to be not only an incredibly talented author, but also a great investigative journalist. His dogged pursuit, of Greenglass and of other previously unavailable sources, combines with the Philipson book to help the reader understand the forces that drove both David Greenglass and his siter, Ethel Greenglass Rosenberg, to act as they did. David was the youngest and favorite child, who even as an adult could do no wrong in his family's eyes. Conversely, Ethel, the only daughter, seemingly could do nothing right in the eyes of her mother. The family unmistakably "chose sides" and turned completely against her while supporting David 100% in this ordeal. Sam Roberts presents a balanced, impartial and thoroughly fascinating view of both of these major players in the drama. Most important, he reserves for the reader the judgment of whether Ethel was the "martyr" or "saint" that some people painted her to be, whether David was the "snake" that many perceived him to be, or whether perhaps they both lay somewhere between these two extremes.

Although I was only nine years old when the Rosenberg's were executed on June 19, 1953, I do have vague recollections of their execution. The book is over 500 pages long but worth its length. Without going into lengthy details, as I understand the story, in 1945 Julius Rosenberg asked his sister-in-law, Ruth Greenglass, to suggest to her husband David, who was working on the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos, New Mexico, to provide details about the makings of the atomic bomb to be passed on to the Soviets. This David agreed to do since Russia had been an American ally during World War II. There appears to be some doubt as to what Ethel Rosenberg's role in this scheme was. Ethel apparently knew what her husband Julius was up to and was even agreeable to it. When her brother David was arrested, he agreed to cooperate with the government providing his wife would not be implicated. Instead David claimed that Ethel did the typing of his (David's) notes from Los Alamos. When author Sam Roberts interviewed David for the book David wavers as to who actually did the typing of his notes. He now states that it most likely was his wife Ruth. This apparently is where he is said to have sent his sister to the electric chair to save his wife Ruth. Would David have done this had he known a death sentence was facing his sister? From his interview with author Roberts I would have to say yes he would have although even though they were guilty they didn't deserve to die. One of the Rosenberg's two sons, Michael, is quoted as saying, "My mother went to the death house and Aunt Ruth goes home to make dinner." If you enjoy American history this is a book that you will want to make sure you have in your library. This is riveting American history.

David Halberstam's jacket blurb for Sam Robert's incredibly well-written book "The Brother" states that it is "...unsparing in its description of all the players in the case." That assessment couldn't be more dead-on. Mr. Roberts has combed the trial record, spoken to many of the surviving participants, scored the incredible coup of getting David Greenglass nailed down, and culled the voluminous secondary source material about the Rosenberg case to present crystalline portrayals of the stars of this doomed production. The reader learns that the trial judge, Irving Kaufman, conducted himself as little more than a prosecutor in a black robe. Instead of being a neutral arbiter he busily set about assuring that the Rosenbergs and Morton Sobell would be convicted by time and again plastering over holes in the government's case. Judge Kaufman had actively lobbied for the case to be assigned to him, going so far as to guarantee the lead prosecutor, Irving Saypol, that he would impose death sentences upon conviction. Judge Kaufman also had numerous ex parte meetings and phone conversations with both Mr. Saypol and Mr. Saypol's deputy, Roy Cohn, during the course of the trial in complete violation of the judicial canon of ethics. Mr. Saypol, later Judge Saypol, fares no better than Judge Kaufman. Mr. Roberts demonstrates conclusively that Mr. Saypol was the prime-mover in suborning the now self-confessed perjury of David Greenglass, particularly in the following instance-Ethel Rosenberg was as innocent as Julius Rosenberg was guilty. The mere fact that she was "cognizant" of her husband's activities, and approved of them, does not make her guilty. We have never been big on guilt by association in this country. Mr. Saypol had her indicted, in a capital case no less, to use this mother of two small boys as leverage against her husband, who the government dearly wanted to plead guilty and tell all. This gambit failed, and Mr. Saypol was left, on the eve of trial, with no evidence against Mrs. Rosenberg. Mr. Saypol then, with the help of David Greenglass's lawyer, O. John Rogge, had Mr. Greenglass "remember" that Mrs. Rosenberg had actually done the typing of Mr. Greenglass's hand-written notes about the classified information that he had stolen from Los Alamos. Ruth Greenglass, David's wife (and co-conspirator, though never indicted) also belatedly "remembered" the typing incident; neither Greenglass had mentioned it in any of their previous, numerous, debriefings with prosecutors. Mr. Saypol had his "overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy". He had his smoking gun.

Mr. Roberts, fair-minded to a fault, doesn't let the defense team off the hook either. Mr. Rosenberg's lawyer, Emanuel Bloch, comes off as tactically inept and obsequious. Mrs. Rosenberg was represented by Alexander Bloch, the seventy year-old father of Emanuel. This was the first criminal case he had ever tried. Both Bloch's were clearly out of their depth.

For whatever else this remarkable book is it is also an indictment of capital punishment in America. Sadly, the conditions that led to the very public burning of an innocent woman still exist. There are still unpopular defendants prosecuted by over-zealous prosecutors who are aided by politically motivated judges. There are still defense lawyers who represent people whose lives are on the line when they are not qualified to do so. This deadly confluence will continue to claim innocent lives until America joins the rest of the civilized world and abolishes capital punishment. Mr. Roberts is owed a great debt for elucidating this in "The Brother".

This is one of the most brilliant works of non-fiction I have ever read. The trial and execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg has always been a sensitive and controversial subject for Americans. Although many authors have written books on the subject, only one has been able to talk to the chief witness who testified against the Rosenbergs and sent them to the electric chair for espionage, Ethel's brother, David Greenglass. Sam Roberts did some excellent research and has found a bounty of never before told information about the case and the family. Every chapter is more exciting than the one before it. Excellent job Sam