“Because he identified Julius Rosenberg as a communist agent in 500 pages of scrupulous scholarship that has since been confirmed by National Security Agency intercepts?) “
I’ve always wondered: why was it so important for so many on the left to believe that the Rosenbergs really weren’t spies? After all, the accusation was that they shared information with the USSR, during WWII, when it was an ally of the US.
This kind of issue has always seemed like the left at its sillier, though not as silly as the identity politics of today, in which Judis’ comments are somewhat sound. The Hiss case is another example. Back in 1968, for example, I bought a copy of Whitaker Chambers’ WITNESS secondhand, read it, and decided immediately that it was stupid to care whether or not Hiss was a spy. Chambers sounded fairly convincing but it seemed clear to me that if I had been Hiss I would have done exactly what they accused him of doing. And why not?
Christopher Rhoades Dÿkema
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20030119/418bd9d8/attachment.htm>