THE OPPENHEIMER CASE
611
second rank of American physicists." In an opposition of such low
quality inevitably we remark a bottom-dog hostility which may once
have been matched by the top-dog arrogance which we hear ascribed
to Dr. Oppenheimer. But hostility intimates, as arrogance never does,
a motivation too personal to be trusted. And if indeed Dr. Oppen–
heimer was once arrogant, this is no longer observable in the record.
Perhaps he has been much chastened, but now all we read in his
behavior is a decent pride.
Of course in any society, and particularly in our own, a distinc–
tion like Dr. Oppenheimer's is not easily borne, not even by the
person who is himself so generously endowed-there is more than a
trace of apology for his unique gifts in Dr. Oppenheimer's autobio–
graphical letter in reply to Mr. Nichols' letter of notification suspend–
ing his clearance. It is expectable enough that the witnesses who
appear at the inquiry on Dr. Oppenheimer's behalf are themselves,
most of them, greatly distinguished men well known far beyond their
own professions-Vannevar Bush, James Conant, Gordon Dean,
Oliver Buckley,
K.
T. Compton, John
J.
McCloy, ex-Ambassador
Kennan, Fermi, Rabi, Von Neumann. But what is no less expectable,
I suppose, and yet peculiarly dismaying is the fact that Dr. Oppen–
heimer's personal powers, his influence on his associates and his per–
suasiveness, are offered by those who oppose him as supporting evi–
dence of his dangerousness to the national security, and especially as
we come to see the degree to which the investigation of
his
loyalty
rests, not so much on factual evidence, as on interpretation-and I
mean interpretation by the witnesses as well as by the judges: there
is scarcely a witness in the hearings who does not tell us what Dr.
Oppenheimer must have been thinking or what he would necessarily
think under given circumstances. In Dr. Oppenheimer's situation, that
is, the Unhappier human motives are not merely a comment on the
human disposition but also an important clue to the nature of the
dilemma.
As
I say, one had heard reports of a sharp cleavage between
Commissioner Strauss and Dr. Oppenheimer on the H-bomb de–
cision. One had even heard that the loyalty charge against Dr.
Oppenheimer had been revived by powerful adversaries in and
around the Atomic Energy Commission in order to destroy his power.
