Kai Bird & Martin J. Sherwin

by American Prometheus: The Triumph;Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer

  472 “During a single seven-day”: William L. Borden, memo to JCAE chairman, 11/3/52, pp. 8–9, box 41, JCAE, no. DCXXXV, RG 128, NA.

  473 “I think it would be”: Strauss to Borden, 12/10/52, William Borden, box 10, AEC series, NA. For a discussion of other influences on Borden’s pursuit of Oppenheimer, see Priscilla McMillan, The Ruin of J. Robert Oppenheimer, Chap. 15.

  473 “probably a compilation”: Priscilla McMillan, The Ruin of J. Robert Oppenheimer, p. 172.

  474 This sequence of withdrawals: There is a cover page to the Oppenheimer dossier which records the names and dates of previous users of the file. See John A. Waters memo to file, 5/14/53 and Gordon Dean letter to the Attorney General, 5/20/53, AEC files. As Jack Holl has written, “Publicly Borden always claimed that he acted alone and without consultation . . . Privately, he later told a Commission official that he had discussed the case with ‘one individual who is intimately familiar with the atomic program,’ whose name he preferred not to give, and whose name was not revealed.” That individual was certainly Lewis Strauss. Jack A. Holl, “In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: Origins of the Government’s Security Case,” a December 1975 paper presented to the American Historical Association, pp. 7–8. See also Hewlett and Holl, Atoms for Peace and War, pp. 45–47, 63. For more on Strauss’ meeting with Borden, see also McMillan, The Ruin of J. Robert Oppenheimer, Chap. 15.

  474 “Strauss had promised”: Harold P. Green, “The Oppenheimer Case: A Study in the Abuse of Law,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, September 1977, p. 57.

  474 “The Admiral is extremely anxious”: Belmont to Ladd, memo, 9/10/53, JRO FBI file, sect. 14.

  475 “to elucidate what”: Goodchild, J. Robert Oppenheimer, pp. 219–20.

  475 “For all my trouble”: Michelmore, The Swift Years, pp. 199–200.

  475 “It is a cruel”: Reith Lectures, 1953, boxes 276–278, JRO Papers, LOC.

  476 “The open society”: Michelmore, The Swift Years, pp. 202–3.

  476 he “didn’t understand”: Lincoln Gordon, phone interview by Bird, 5/18/04. At the time, Gordon was stationed in the U.S. Embassy in London. Later he served as U.S. ambassador to Brazil.

  476 “Chevalier, who is very”: Secret cable from U.S. Legation, Paris, to FBI director, 2/15/54, JRO FBI file, doc. 797, declassified 7/11/01.

  476 By December 7, 1953: According to Chevalier, he had seen Oppenheimer two or three times in the autumn of 1946, five or six times in 1947, four or five times in 1949, twice in September and October 1950—and once in December 1953 (Chevalier to Philip Stern, 6/15/68, Stern Papers, JFKL).

  477 Oppenheimer suggested he: Stern, The Oppenheimer Case, pp. 213–14. Chevalier later met with Wyman, who informally tried to get him good advice on what he should do about his American citizenship. But Chevalier never reapplied for a U.S. passport. By early 1954, he was “denied any type of employment by UNESCO because of his refusal to comply with U.S. executive order 10422.” Issued on 1/9/53, this executive order required American employees of the U.N. to pass a security investigation. (Chevalier FBI file, 100-18564, part 2, doc. dated 3/17/54.)

  477 “I certainly don’t”: Chevalier, Oppenheimer, pp. 86–87. The next morning, Chevalier took Oppie and Kitty to visit the French novelist André Malraux.

  478 “thoughtfulness”: Borden to Strauss, 11/19/52, Lewis Strauss folder, box 52, AEC, JCAE Papers, NA.

  478 “more probably than not”: JRO hearing, pp. 837–38.

  478 “It is my recollection”: Strauss, “Memorandum for Oppenheimer File,” 11/9/53, Strauss Papers, HHL.

  478 “The important point”: Lewis L. Strauss memo, 11/30/53; Barton J. Bernstein, “The Oppenheimer Loyalty-Security Case Reconsidered,” Stanford Law Review, July 1990, p. 1442.

  479 “whining, whimpering”: Thomas C. Reeves, The Life and Times of Joe McCarthy, p. 530.

  479 “All the vague feelings”: C. D. Jackson diary, 11/27/53, log 1953 (2), box 56, DDEL. Jackson later told a White House staff meeting that “this Three Little Monkeys act was not working and would not work, and that appeasing McCarthy in order to save his 7 votes for this year’s legislative program was poor tactics, poor strategy and . . . unless the President stepped up to bat on this one soon, the Republicans would have neither a program, nor 1954, nor 1956.”

  479 “flagrant performance”: C. D. Jackson to Sherman Adams, 11/25/53, Sherman Adams folder, box 23, C. D. Jackson Papers, DDEL.

  479 “the worst one so far”: Eisenhower, telephone calls, 12/2/53, Phone calls folder, July–Dec. 1953 (1), box 5, DDE Diary Series, Ann Whitman file, DDEL.

  479 Early the next morning: Pfau, No Sacrifice Too Great, p. 151; Strauss, Men and Decisions, p. 267.

  480 “they consist of nothing”: Eisenhower diary, 12/2/53 and 12/3/53, “Oct.–Dec. 1953,” folder box 4, Ann Whitman file, DDEL.

  480 Eisenhower’s “blank wall”: Eisenhower, “Memorandum for the Attorney General,” 12/3/53, Strauss Papers, HHL.

  480 “The anti-intellectualism”: Christman, Target Hiroshima, pp. 249–50; Royal, The Story of J. Robert Oppenheimer, p. 155.

  481 “it might be a good idea”: Record of phone conversation (JRO calling Strauss), 3:05 p.m., 12/14/53, Strauss Papers, HHL.

  481 “are distorted and restated”: Belmont to Ladd, FBI memo, 11/19/53, doc. 549, JRO FBI file, cited in Bernstein, “The Oppenheimer Loyalty-Security Case Reconsidered,” Stanford Law Review, July 1990, p. 1440.

  481 “Rogers smilingly withdrew”: C. D. Jackson diary, 12/18/53, log 1953 (2), box 56, DDEL.

  482 “a polite form of”: Strauss, memo to file, 12/21/53, 12/22/53, box 66, Strauss Papers, HHL.

  482 According to Nichols’ notes: Kenneth D. Nichols, confidential memo, 12/21/53, Strauss Papers, HHL; FBI memo to Belmont, 12/21/53, JRO FBI file, sect. 16, doc. 512.

  483 A hidden microphone recorded: Stern, The Oppenheimer Case, p. 234; Stuart H. Loory, “Oppenheimer Wiretapping Is Disclosed,” WP, 12/28/75.

  483 “I can’t believe”: Stern, The Oppenheimer Case, p. 235.

  483 Strauss had expected: JRO FBI file, sect. 16, doc. 574–575, Belmont, memo to Ladd, 12/22/53.

  483 The phone tap was finally: Ladd to Hoover, memo, 12/21/53, JRO FBI file, sect. 16, doc. 514. This memo indicates that Strauss requested the wiretaps and surveillance on 12/17/53. Curiously, an internal FBI memo warned their agents that “according to the AEC, Oppenheimer keeps a .22 caliber pistol on a chair near the front door.” See Belmont to Ladd, memo, 12/22/53, JRO FBI file, doc. 513.

  484 “Dear Lewis”: JRO to Strauss, 12/22/53, Strauss Papers, HHL.

  484 “terrible crash”: Anne Marks, interview by Bird, 3/14/02.

  Chapter Thirty-four: “It Looks Pretty Bad, Doesn’t It?”

  487 “a slippery sonuvabitch”: Bernstein, “The Oppenheimer Loyalty-Security Case Reconsidered,” Stanford Law Review, July 1990, p. 1449.

  487 “whether your continued”: JRO hearing, pp. 3, 6.

  488 “They stayed in there”: Verna Hobson, interview by Sherwin, 7/31/79, p. 4.

  488 “items of so-called”: JRO hearing, p. 7.

  489 “It looks pretty bad”: Stern, The Oppenheimer Case, p. 520.

  489 “I had hoped”: Lilienthal, The Journals of David E. Lilienthal, vol. 3, p. 462.

  489 “how things stand”: Belmont to Ladd, FBI memo, 1/7/54, sect. 17, doc. 605, JRO FBI file.

  490 “all over town”: Belmont to Ladd, FBI memo, 1/15/54, sect. 18, JRO FBI file.

  490 On January 16, Garrison: Strauss to Hoover, 1/18/54, Strauss Papers, HHL.

  490 “under no circumstances”: Stern, The Oppenheimer Case, p. 257; Strauss, memo to file, 1/29/54, Strauss Papers, HHL.

  490 “that the Bureau’s”: Goodchild, J. Robert Oppenheimer, p. 227.

  490 “that the case was”: Strauss, memo to file, 2/15/62, Harold Green folder, 1957–1976, box 36, Strauss Papers, HHL. Strauss learned this from Green, who said Herbert Marks had told him of the wiretaps at the time.

 
491 “He’d come in the room”: Bacher, interview by Sherwin, 3/29/83.

  491 “in view of the fact”: FBI cable, 3/17/54, sect. 24, doc. 1024, JRO FBI file.

  491 “if this case is lost”: Belmont to Ladd, FBI memo, 1/26/54, sect. 19, doc. 704, JRO FBI file. Not all historians agree that Strauss was uncompromising in his pursuit of Oppenheimer. For a slightly different view, see Bernstein, “The Oppenheimer Loyalty-Security Case Reconsidered,” Stanford Law Review, July 1990, p. 1385.

  491 To foreclose that possibility: Thorpe, “J. Robert Oppenheimer and the Transformation of the Scientific Vocation,” dissertation, p. 562.

  491 Browder called him: Stern, The Oppenheimer Case, p. 242; Goodchild, J. Robert Oppenheimer, p. 230.

  491 “cordial contacts”: Belmont to Ladd, FBI memo, 1/29/54, JRO FBI file, sect. 19, doc. 716,

  492 “When Dr. Bradbury testifies”: Strauss to Robb, 2/23/54, Strauss Papers, HHL; Belmont to Ladd, FBI memo, 2/25/54, sect. 21, doc. 824, JRO FBI file.

  492 In addition and also at Strauss’: Hewlett and Holl, Atoms for Peace and War, p. 86.

  493 “unaccountably nervous”: James Reston, Deadline: A Memoir, p. 221–26; Richard Polenberg, In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer, p. xxvii.

  493 “highly irritated”: FBI to Lewis Strauss, 2/2/54, sect. 19, doc. 741, JRO FBI file (declassified 1997).

  493 When he finally took: FBI summary for 1/29/54, sect. 19, doc. 720, JRO FBI file.

  493 In return, Reston: Stern, The Oppenheimer Case, p. 531.

  493 “They were very intense”: Verna Hobson, interview by Sherwin, 7/31/79, p. 8.

  493 “May I have your”: Ibid., p. 5.

  494 Oppie confessed to Bethe: Jeremy Bernstein, Oppenheimer, p. 96; Bernstein cites a phone interview with Bethe.

  494 “I’m sorry to hear”: Robert Coughlan, “The Tangled Drama and Private Hells of Two Famous Scientists,” Life, 12/13/63; Teller, Memoirs, p. 373.

  494 “He expressed a lack”: Stern, The Oppenheimer Case, p. 516.

  494 “considerable trouble”: FBI summary for 2/6/54 (wiretap), sect. 19, doc. 760, JRO FBI file.

  495 “It seemed to me”: Verna Hobson, interview by Sherwin, 7/31/79, p. 5.

  495 “I was going to drive”: Ibid., p. 10; Hobson, review of In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer, a play by Heinar Kipphardt, Princeton History, no. 1, 1971, pp. 95–97.

  495 “There goes a narr”: Seymour Melman told this story to Marcus Raskin. Melman heard it from Einstein’s assistant, Bruria Kaufmann.

  496 “The German calamity”: Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, p. 55.

  496 “Oppenheimer is not a gypsy”: NYT, 4/24/04; Holton, Einstein, History, and Other Passions, pp. 218–20.

  496 In late February: Belmont to Ladd, FBI memo, 1/15/54, sect. 18, JRO FBI file.

  496 Now Rabi proposed: Thorpe, “J. Robert Oppenheimer and the Transformation of the Scientific Vocation” dissertation, p. 496.

  496 “out of the question”: Belmont to Boardman, FBI memo, 3/4/54, sect. 21, doc. 844, JRO FBI file. Herken, Brotherhood of the Bomb, p. 281.

  496 It ran to forty-two: Stern, The Oppenheimer Case, p. 253.

  497 “I think there are things”: FBI wiretap, 3/12/54, sect. 24, doc. 1037, JRO FBI file.

  497 “You have nothing personal”: Jerrold Zacharias to JRO, 4/6/54, Philip M. Stern Papers, JFKL.

  497 “It was incredibly good”: Ruth Tolman to JRO, 4/3/54, Ruth Tolman folder, box 72, JRO Papers.

  497 The children would remain: Louis Hempelmann, interview by Sherwin, 8/10/79, p. 11.

  497 “I would like you to know”: Stern, The Oppenheimer Case, p. 258.

  Chapter Thirty-five: “I Fear That This Whole Thing Is a Piece of Idiocy”

  498 “if he decided”: Belmont to Boardman, FBI memo, 3/2/54 and 3/1/54, Strauss-Rogers phone conversation, sect. 21, doc. 834, JRO FBI file.

  498 “This was the shock of the day”: Ecker interview by Sherwin, 7/16/91, p. 7.

  499 The opposing teams of lawyers: Rhodes, Dark Sun, p. 543; Herken, Brotherhood of the Bomb, p. 286; Goodchild, J. Robert Oppenheimer, p. 236; Stern, The Oppenheimer Case, pp. 260, 268; Polenberg, ed., In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer, p. xxix.

  499 “We made a pretty”: Goodchild, J. Robert Oppenheimer, p. 237.

  499 “fingers in the dike”: JRO hearing, p. 53.

  499 “inquiry,” not a trial: Polenberg, ed., In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer, p. 29. Polenberg’s edited and abbreviated version of the Oppenheimer hearing transcript is superb, but generally we have cited the full transcript published by MIT Press.

  500 “I liked the new”: JRO hearing, pp. 8 and 876.

  500 “without my report”: Ibid., p. 14.

  500 “during the period”: Ibid., p. 5.

  501 “Your letter”: Ibid., pp. 10–11.

  501 “one of our own men”: Keith Teeter, FBI memo, 3/24/54, sect. 24, doc. 980, JRO FBI file.

  502 “Strauss and the Eisenhower people”: Drew Pearson, Diaries 1949–1959, p. 303.

  503 “key atomic figure”: Excerpt of Walter Winchell telecast, 4/11/54, Strauss Papers, HHL.

  503 “You said you were late”: JRO hearing, pp. 53–55.

  503 So on April 9 Strauss: memo to file, 4/9/54, Strauss Papers, HHL; Hewlett and Holl, Atoms for Peace and War, pp. 89, 91.

  503 “being tried in the press”: Bernstein, “The Oppenheimer Loyalty-Security Case Reconsidered,” Stanford Law Review, July 1990, p. 1463; Strauss to Roger Robb, memo 4/16/54, Strauss Papers, HHL.

  503 “The trouble with Oppenheimer”: Pais, A Tale of Two Continents, p. 326; Robert Serber, Peace and War, pp. 183–84.

  504 “I am very clear on this”: JRO hearing, p. 103.

  504 “I had been told”: Goodchild, J. Robert Oppenheimer, p. 231.

  505 “In the case of a brother”: JRO hearing, p. 111.

  505 “Doctor, I notice” and subsequent quotes: Ibid., pp. 113–14.

  506 While preparing for the hearing: Goodchild, J. Robert Oppenheimer, p. 231; Herken, Brotherhood of the Bomb, p. 287.

  507 “Because I was an idiot”: JRO hearing, p. 137.

  507 “ ‘I’ve just seen a man’ ”: Stern, The Oppenheimer Case, p. 283; Robert Coughlan, “The Tangled Drama and Private Hells of Two Famous Scientists,” Life, 12/13/63, p. 102.

  507 “Doctor . . . I will read to you”: JRO hearing, p. 144.

  509 Feeling cornered: Ibid., pp. 146–49.

  510 “Oppenheimer’s story, although misleading”: Hewlett and Holl, Atoms for Peace and War, 1953–1961, p. 96.

  510 “The story I told Pash”: JRO hearing p. 888.

  511 “ ‘I should have told it’ ”: JRO hearing, pp. 888–89.

  513 “I knew her”: JRO hearing, pp. 153–54.

  513 It was a humiliating experience: Navasky, Naming Names, p. 322.

  513 “Is the list long enough?”: JRO hearing, p. 155.

  513 “the way a soldier does”: Coughlan, “The Tangled Drama and Private Hells of Two Famous Scientists,” Life, 12/13/63.

  514 “From the beginning”: Goodchild, J. Robert Oppenheimer, p. 228.

  514 “On Wednesday, Oppenheimer broke”: Strauss to President Eisenhower, 4/16/54; Eisenhower to Strauss, cable, 4/19/54, Strauss Papers, Eisenhower folders, box 26D, AEC series, HHL.

  514 “I would be amazed”: JRO hearing, p. 167; Polenberg, ed., In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer, pp. 77–78.

  515 “File review failed”: FBI memo to Hoover, 12/23/53, sect. 16, doc. 563, JRO FBI file (for Harvey memo, see p. 248).

  516 Lansdale was interviewed: Herken, Brotherhood of the Bomb, p. 400, note 47.

  517 “Yes, it is possible”: JRO hearing, p. 265.

  517 “as it would endanger”: Hoover to Groves, 6/13/46, and Groves to Hoover, 6/21/46, RG 77 (MED files) entry 8, box 100, NA.

  518 When the FBI asked Frank: Frank Oppenheimer was interviewed by the FBI on 12/29/53 at his Colorado ranch. He refused to sign an affida
vit. Strauss was given a copy of the FBI interview on 1/7/54. (Herken, Brotherhood of the Bomb, pp. 272, 400.)

  518 But then Groves went on: FBI memo to Hoover, 12/22/53, sect. 16, doc. 557, 565, JRO FBI file.

  518 As late as 1968: Leslie Groves oral history interview by Raymond Henle, 8/9/68, p. 17, HHL.

  518 “It was very difficult”: Groves to Strauss, 10/20/49 and 11/4/49, box 75, Strauss Papers, HHL.

  519 The historian Gregg Herken: Gregg Herken, Brotherhood of the Bomb, p. 280. The historian Barton J. Bernstein disagrees with Herken’s view. See Barton J. Bernstein, “Reconsidering the Atomic General: Leslie R. Groves,” The Journal of Military History, July 2003: 899.

  519 “The General said”: FBI memo to Hoover, 12/22/53, sect. 16, doc. 565, JRO FBI file.

  519 By then, Groves: Gregg Herken, Brotherhood of the Bomb, p. 281.

  519 This part of the story: Hewlett and Holl, Atoms for Peace and War, p. 98.

  520 “would you clear Dr. Oppenheimer”: Polenberg, ed., In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer, pp. 80–81.

  521 “How could one not have qualms?”: JRO hearing, p. 229.

  521 “I think they did an admirable”: Polenberg, ed., In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer, pp. 107–8.

  521 “My feeling was”: Goodchild, J. Robert Oppenheimer, pp. 248–49.

  522 “convinced that in view of the testimony”: Polenberg, ed., In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer, p. xxv. Belmont to Boardman, 4/17/54, JRO FBI file.

  522 The press did not discover: Stern, The Oppenheimer Case, p. 303; Herken, Brotherhood of the Bomb, p. 288.

  522 “All we had the energy for”: Goodchild, J. Robert Oppenheimer, p. 249.

  522 “Robert, tell them to shove it”: Stern, The Oppenheimer Case, pp. 303–4; Goodchild, J. Robert Oppenheimer, p. 244.

  Chapter Thirty-six: “A Manifestation of Hysteria”

  523 After Oppenheimer was excused: At the time, Conant was serving in the Eisenhower Administration as its high commissioner to West Germany, and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles tried to persuade Conant not to testify. Conant refused and noted in his diary, “Told him I had no choice but to testify at Oppenheimer’s hearings. He said I should know that this might destroy my usefulness in government.” (James Conant diary, 4/19/54, cited in Bernstein, “The Oppenheimer Loyalty-Security Case Reconsidered,” Stanford Law Review, July 1990, p. 1459.)