A new historical study, the most compelling and comprehensive yet written on the domestic politics of the United States in the early years of the nuclear age, shows the tensions and intrigues in the nuclear bomb laboratories
David A. Hollinger
Oppenheimer. Did he tell Groves the truth?
Direct link to this page: https://www.hayadan.org.il/openheimer.html
Robert Oppenheimer was at the time much closer to the Communist Party than he ever admitted. But as director of the laboratory that produced the atomic bomb, and as a weapons adviser to the American government after World War II, he served his country more honestly than many of those who questioned his loyalty. This fascinating paradox is at the heart of the most compelling and comprehensive historical study yet written of the domestic politics of the United States in the early years of the nuclear age. The study, "Brotherhood of," the Bomb was written by Greg Herken, a historian at the Smithsonian Institution.
Harken shows how high-ranking officials conspired, sometimes through illegal wiretapping, to remove Oppenheimer from government service in 1954 and forced a ground forces general to testify falsely that Oppenheimer was considered a security risk. In addition. Harken also demonstrates that Oppenheimer's petty lies about who told him what about potential Soviet espionage stemmed from personal loyalties more than political loyalties, and hurt him more than anyone else. The study includes more than 80 FBI interviews and documents, which were previously classified and recently declassified.
The "Brotherhood" appearing in the title of the book has a double meaning. It refers to the people mentioned in its subtitle - "The Complicated Lives and Loyalties of Robert Oppenheimer, Ernest Lawrence and Edward Teller". These giants of atomic physics were bound together for decades in complex and strained alliances, partly created by these individuals themselves, but often by military and political institutions that used them. Their actions were motivated by vanity, political dogma, interests, ambitions for power and perhaps also assessments of what they saw as the welfare and good of the United States, and the world as a whole.
The title of Harken's book also brings up the relationship between Robert Oppenheimer and his brother Frank, a physicist who Robert brought to the Manhattan Project, even though he was a member of the Communist Party between 1937 and 1941. Oppenheimer's contradictory reports about spies were later portrayed as intended to protect his brother. These lies exposed him to attack by people who wanted his downfall for other reasons, notably his opposition to specific weapons production initiatives supported in the early 1954s by Teller and the US Air Force. Teller, who eventually took Oppenheimer's place as the most influential adviser on nuclear weapons matters, testified in XNUMX that Oppenheimer should be stripped of any security clearance.
Harkan tells about the two "brotherhoods" in a fascinating plot that moves from Berkeley to Los Alamos and Washington and several other places where bombs were designed, tested and discussed. The University of California, Berkeley, was the academic home of Oppenheimer and Ernest Orlando Lawrence, an incredibly creative experimental physicist who won the Nobel Prize in 1939 for designing the cyclotron (particle accelerator). Lawrence was the first person the administration chose to run the Los Alamos laboratory. But his casual and relaxed approach to security practices prompted James Conant and VanVar Bush, the two senior White House science advisers, to rethink the issue.
Lawrence brought Oppenheimer to a committee of scientists to advise the administration on assembling the bomb,
and provided such wise and sharp advice regarding technical problems that it became essential
for the project. General Leslie Groves, the military officer in charge of the Manhattan Project,
Finally chose Oppenheimer as director of Los Alamos, even though he was a theorist without
Administrative experience. Groves was aware that among his friends, his family members
Oppenheimer's students were many former members of the Communist Party,
But the contacts he had with Oppenheimer in 1942 convinced him of his honesty
and his loyalty.
However, Harken's research shows that Oppenheimer was close to the Communist Party
in 1940 and 1941 even more than the FBI was able to bring up in its investigations
The intensity in the forties and fifties. Harken does not rule out the possibility
Schoffenheimer was a member of the secret "professional section" of the party in Berkeley, but he
He was more emphatic about a far more important point: he found no evidence that Oppenheimer
Ever passed classified information to Soviet intelligence, or had any sympathy for the targets
Soviet politics changed the advice he gave to the American government. the horn
Proves that from the moment Oppenheimer entered the service of the government, he justified the trust he gave
Bo Groves.
In 1954 Groves was forced to testify against Oppenheimer. A conversation between him and Oppenheimer
At the end of 1943, which exposed Groves to a lawsuit for violating regulations that prohibited E
Providing important information on espionage issues to the authorities during the war was a basis
to blackmail The general ordered Oppenheimer to name physicists who were agents
Soviets appealed to them. Oppenheimer admitted that such explorations had taken place, but
He declined to name the physicists the agents contacted. In his conversation with Groves
He told the general that there was only one such physicist - his brother Frank - but convinced
Groves to promise him that he would never reveal this to the FBI.
Oppenheimer provided the FBI with a different story about the espionage efforts, making no mention of the
Brother. He did mention others, including Hacon Chevalier, professor of French
in Berkeley, who he says served as an intermediary in the Soviet initiative.
Groves kept his promise, and even persistently defended Oppenheimer over the next decade. but
In 1943, an aide, whom Groves trusted and revealed to him about his conversation with, leaked
Oppenheimer, to the FBI the secret they were keeping. Thus when
Louis Strauss, chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, prepared the collection procedure
The committee's testimony on Oppenheimer in 1954, Hoover was willing to help. majority
The testimony about Oppenheimer was documented information about his connections with members of the party
the communist, like his conflicting stories about the role played by his friend Chevalier.
But Strauss and Hoover knew that this old information could paint Oppenheimer in the light
Different, if Groves can be motivated to present it in a different way.
Hoover worked closely with Strauss to manipulate Groves' testimony to the witness
The general's exposure to the possibility of legal proceedings being taken against him. Groves was allowed
Not to mention his private conversation with Oppenheimer and thus not having to contradict testimony
Oppenheimer gave evidence in the same procedure, from which it actually emerged that his brother Frank
"There was nothing to do" with the probing attempts of Soviet agents. all that was
All Groves has to do is announce that he considers his protégé a "security risk."
Groves did what was expected of him.
Did Oppenheimer tell Groves the truth? And if so, it is possible that the hesitation of
Oppenheimer saw in his brother a man who was seen by his communist friends as a spy
Potentially were they perhaps based on the awareness of the fact that his brother was indeed a spy?
Harkan did not find any evidence to confirm any answer to these questions.
The author is a professor of history at the University of California, Berkeley
https://www.hayadan.org.il/BuildaGate4/general2/data_card.php?Cat=~~~337635651~~~26&SiteName=hayadan
