Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1954-06-20
Juduinu the Whole Man

mission have been urged to rest their final
decision in the case of DR.. j. Robert Open
heimer on a judgment Of 'the whole man."
This will not be easy assuming the commission
Is disposed to accede to the request.
For Dr. Oppenheimer, viewed as a whole
man. is, to say the least, a very complicated
individual.
There can be found in the 992 pages Of
testimony covering the hearing in his case some
material that is quite damaging to DR.. Open
heimer Perhaps the most disturbing is his
self admitted lie to security investigators when
h0 was directing the Los Alamos A-bomb project
Ia 1913. DR.. Oppenheimer knew he was ham
pering these men in their investigation Of
espionage, and the transcript Of the false story
he told them does not make reaSSuring reading,
even at this late date.
There are other adverse items. Still
pulling is his connection with the case Of DR..
Bernard Peters In 1949 DR.. Oppenheimer testt-
fed at q closed session Of the House I'm
American Activities Committee He said that
DR.. Peters, who had been German Communist,
denounced the Communist Party in this coun-
try in the late sos as being "too conciliatory
an organization, not sufficiently dedicated to
the overthrow of the Government by force and
violence" Despite this, he subsequently wrote
o letter repudiating or modifying his testimony,
A1b1OuSu presumably CAAC tCoU1AOAJ "oc VI NC
The motive seems to have been to help DR..
Peters keep q university teaching position.
There is more. william Borden, for four years
executive director Of the Joint Congressional
Committee on Atomic Energy, expressed his
"conEdered opinion" that Dr. Oppenheimer
more probably than not Is an agent OF the
Soviet Union" DR.. Wendell M Latimer, re-
spected scientist, testified that he would find
It difficult" to trust DR.. Oppenheimer in
security matters. Another witness was DR..
Edward Teller, who fought hard for the H-bomb
project when DR.. Oppenheimer and others
opposed it, and without whose brilliant inven-
ton" the super weapon might not have been
made. He said he did not doubt DR.. Open
heimer's loyalty to the United States. He
added, however, that DR.. Oppenheimer's actions
in numerous issues seemed to be confused and
complicated and that to this extent 81 feel
that I would like to see the vital interests of
this country in hands which I understand
better and therefore trust more"
This is a disturbing picture, as far as it
goes. But it is not by any means picture of
the whole man.
The overwhelming opinion among the
scientific and official fraternity, as revealed by
the testimony, is that Dr. Oppenheimer is loyal
to this country and that he is not security
risk On the list of those who testified to this
effect one finds these names: David Lilienthal
and Gordon Dean, former chairmen OF the Acc;
Dr. Robert r. Bacher and Sumner Pike, former
Acc members. And then such as these: VAN
nevar Bush, James B. Conant, Enrico Fermi,
Hans Bethe Karl Compton and many others.
These men, comprising q kind OF Who's Who
of the times in question, testified unequivocally
to their faith in DR.. Oppenheimer.
Perhaps one might reason that DR.. Open
g. HA1l ~ A how h hoNo r1SA
Russia at the time was at war with Nazi
Germany, but that he did an about-face when
the threat to the Soviet Union was lifted. The
record speaks to the contrary, however, despite
his initial opposition to making the H-bomb.
Here is the testimony of DR.. Walter G. Whit
man. head of the chemical department OF the
Massachusetts Institute Of Technology and
former chairman of the Research and De-
velopment Board of the Defense Department:
"I should say that DR.. Oppenheimer more than
any other man served to educate the military
to the potentialities of the atomic weapon for
other than strategic bombing purposes; its use
possibly in tactical situations"
This most certainly was not playing the
Soviet game, for the tactical A-weaponS which
Dr. Oppenheimer urged are major item OF
insurance for the West today in Europe.
There is much more Of this in the record,
but it is summed up in this statement by DR..
Whitman 81 have an opinion that he CDR.
Oppenheimer) is completely loyal and that he
is not any more of security risk than I am. ="
This, then, in greatly abbreviated form, is
the public picture of the whole man now being
studied by the Acc members The reservation
noted here is important, for there is great
deal Of documentary material in the record
which has not been made public for security
reasons Perhaps this unpublished material
will be decisive, one way or the other.
Certainly, in any event, no one will envy
the Acc members as they undertake this hard
and thanklesS task of reviewing the 2-to-1
hearing board finding that Dr. Oppenheimer is
a security risk. And just as certainly. 1t would
be presumptuouS, not having access to the
whole record, to express an opinion as to what
the decision should be. 1t may not be inappro-
pirate, however, to express the hope that due
consideration will be given to this observation
by the lawyers for DR.. Oppenheimer: "A deci-
sion that DR.. oppenheimer should not be cleared
Tor access to classified information would for
oil practical purposes be ANAL. We have seen
In DR.. Oppenheimer's case how often decision
b favcr Of clearing man can be rsepened and