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

by Sam Roberts (Author) "David Greenglass never cried for his sister..." (more)
Key Phrases: stolen uranium, lens molds, judge interjected, New York, Los Alamos, David Greenglass (more...)

Editorial Reviews

Review
"Sam Roberts?aided by new documentation from the Soviets and unique access to David Greenglass, Ethel Rosenberg's brother?has written the definitive account of one of the most bitterly debated episodes of the postwar era. The Brother is a remarkable achievement: lucid, amazingly fair-minded, unsparing in its description of all the players in the case. Roberts has at once given us a marvelous read--a real-life spy thriller?and rendered a rare public service."
-David Halberstam -- Review

Review
"Sam Roberts–aided by new documentation from the Soviets and unique access to David Greenglass, Ethel Rosenberg's brother–has written the definitive account of one of the most bitterly debated episodes of the postwar era. The Brother is a remarkable achievement: lucid, amazingly fair-minded, unsparing in its description of all the players in the case. Roberts has at once given us a marvelous read--a real-life spy thriller–and rendered a rare public service."
-David Halberstam

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 560 pages
• Publisher: Random House; 1st edition (September 18, 2001)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0375500138
• ISBN-13: 978-0375500138
• Product Dimensions: 9.5 x 6.6 x 1.6 inches
• Shipping Weight: 2 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 4.7 out of 5 stars See all reviews (21 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #559,571 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

34 of 38 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Blood Isn't Thicker, After All, November 28, 2001

By	R. Hardy "Rob Hardy" (Columbus, Mississippi USA) - See all my reviews (TOP 50 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)

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.

18 of 20 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Prisoners Dilemma, February 19, 2002

By	taking a rest - See all my reviews (TOP 100 REVIEWER)

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.

11 of 11 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Buy this Book, Subsidize David Greenglass?, January 28, 2002

By	New Jersey Mom (New Jersey) - See all my reviews

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! :)