Vol XI Oppenheimer

,,.
,
/
.....
L_C_ONFIDENTIAt · 000028149
UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENE-ROY COMMisSION
•· VOLUME XI
In the Matter Of:
J. ROBERT OPPENHEIMER
Job_li_q3_ • t'r I
::.±___I
j,j d! 11 I Ii 1 •cl>fultpd.
._ •,1d Nl'D q p
~~
i .. -
I ~~~o:J:3~.
"
~c~"'
o!l! Iii
Iii
~
~~ ~ ~~~
~ Ozz~Czo~
'-'oo 0 Jo~!i!:: Place - W ashinqton, D. C.
~
z--ow- u
~55;:;113~ ~
~ .......... z~ ................ Date - April 26, 1954
10;;~~0;;
ffi
wSS~gSSiO
filUU(..)000 _g
>
o....:NM . r- Pares.;.J..~.~.!L.~.r:!... ~..l.~?. ....... .
li N
i
! N
;: ;: g Ul~k ~
~ ~
rl
D ~2i
i:;..-
"'
.5
N
i
....... .,., 0
::: g ~ g~
"1:8l ~fil ii en.
i c• ~c
.i),:.~.I>-
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY
~ ~1-~~- I
0Jficial 'R... eporters
...
: ~ ~ .1i! ~
- ZN Z
306 Ninth Street. N. W ~
Wcmbin910n 4. D. C.
Telepho.,.., NAtional 1120-1121
Ass_q_c,.iAT!S IN PlllNCIPAL CITIES 20120006255

i ·.-COl!HHNFE'ffltt<IO!-...NT1t1!'1t"AL1_. •::l:
l! . 'I
~·
F"1
t::iL~ _NOTE: This~s the btl';eavailable reproduction of the original
, Copy. No. 8 \'.ii
Hlf 3283.'i Doclli : 36,192 Page 1 document. The originaf document itself is blurred and difficult to read.
,
;
_,
Hlf 3283~ DocXd:364792 Page 2

-INDEX
----
Witness Direct Cross Redirect Recross
•
KATHERINE OPPENHEIMER 1990
CHARLES CHRISTIAN LAURITSEN 2009 2043 2067 2069

2071
JERROLD R. ZACHARIAS 2077 2090 2097
OLLIVER E. BUCKLEY 2101 2111
ROBERT FOX BACHER 2119 2151 2181
•
lllf 3283~ Docid:364792 Page 3
1988
APICHBOW
1 UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
PERSONNEL SECURITY BOARD
• ------------------------------
In the l4atter of
J. ROBERT OPPENHEIMER
--------~---------------------
Room 2022,
Atomic Energy Commission,
Building T.,.3,
Washington, D. C.
Monday, April 26, 1954.
The above entitled matter came on for hearing,
pursuant to recess, before the Board, at 9:30 a.m.
• PERSONNEL SECURITY BOARD:
MR. GORDON GRAY, Chairman.

DR. WARD T. EVANS, Member.
MR. THOft!AS A. MCll.GAN, Member •
PRESENT:
ROGER ROBB, and
C. A. KOLANDER, JR,, Counsel for the Board.
J. ROBERT OPPENHEIMER.
LLO!l'D K, GARRISOM,
SAMUEL J. Sl LVERlllAN, and
ALLAN B, ECKER, Counsel for J. Robert Oppenheimer.
HERBERT S. MARKS, Co-Counsel for J; Robert Oppenheimer •
•
llW 3283~ DocXd:364792 Paqe 4
1989
P R 0 C E E D I NG S
MR. GRAY: Before we start, Mr. Garrison, Dr. Evans
• bas a statement he would like to make for the record.
your consent, I should like this to appear in the record at
this point.
With
DR. EVANS: Mr. Chairman, for the record, I would like
to state that I think Dr. Bush was in error when he stated that
the members of the Board made a mistake when they agreed to
serve on this Board unless the letter from General Nichols was
rewritten. Personally I knew very little about this case when
I agreed to serve on it at considerable inconvenience to
• myself, and I did so because I thought it was my duty to serve .
under oath?
MR. GRAY: Mrs. Of,penheimer, do you wish to testify
MRS. OPPENHEIMER: Yes.
MR. GRAY: Would you be good enough to stand and
raise your right hand. Your name J,s Katherine Qppenheimer"f
MRS. OPPENHEIMER: Yes.
MR. GRAY: Katherine Oppenheimer, do y01 swear that
the testimony you are to give the Board shall be the truth,
•
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
MRS. OPPENHEIMER: I do.
Whereupon
KATHERINE OPP:Fl(HEJMER
was called as a witness, and having been first duly swo·rn, was
IRf 3283~ Docid:364792 Page 5

1990
vxamined and testified as follows:

MR. GRAY: Will you be seated, please.
• Mrs. Oppenheimer, it is my duty to remind you of
tbe existence of the perjury statutes.
you are familiar with them.

We will assume that
I should also like to say to you what I have said
to the other witnesses, and that is that we consider these
proceedinRS a confidential natter between the Atomic Energy
Commission and its officials on the one hand, and Dr. Oppenheimer
and his 1llltnesses and representatives on the other. The Commission
will issue no publi.c releases, and we express the hope that
•
witnesses will take the same view •
THE WITNJrns: Right.
MR. GRAY: Mr. Garrison, will you proceed?
DIRECT EXAMINATION.
BY MR. SILVERMAN:
Q Yrs. Oppenheimer, you are the wife of Dr. J. Robert

Oppenheimer?
A I am.
Q What were you doing in the autumn of 1933?
A I was attending the University -of Wisconsin .
• Q
A
Q
You were attending the University of Wisconsin?
That is right.
As an undergraduate student?
A Yes.
NW 3283~ Docld:364792 Page 6

1991
Q What did you do during the Christmas holidays of 1933?
A I went to stay with friends of my parents in
• Pittsburgh •
Joe Dallet?
Will you tell us the circumstances of your meeting
A Yes. I have an old friend in Pittsburgh, a girl
called Selma Baker. I saw quite a bit of her at that time.
It was Selma who said she knew a Communist, and would we like
to meet him. Everybody agreed that would be interesting.
There was a New Year's Party. Selma brought Joe Dallet.
Q Did you and he fall in love during that holiday
• period?
Q
We did.
Did you decide you would be married?
A We did.
Q Did you fix a date for that?
A Yes. I decided to go back and finish my semester
at Wisconsin and then join Joe in Youngstown and get ma~ried
there.
q Is that what you did?
•
A Yes •
Q The semester ended at the end of January, I suppose,
of 1934, and you went to Youngstown?
A Early February. I don't know.
lt Joe Dal let was· a member of the Communist Party?
llff 3283~ Docid:364792 Page 7

1992
A He was.
I And you knew that he was?
•
A Yes •
q During your life with him, dicll you join the Pir ty?
A Yes, I did.
Q Will you tell us why you joined the Party'?
A Jaa very much wanted me to, and I didn't mind. I
don't know when I joined the Party. I think it was in 1934,
but I am not sure when.
0 Did you do work for tbe Party?
A Yes.
~ What kind of work?
• A I mimeographed leaflets and letters.
I did generally office work, mostly fer the steel union

I typed.
tba t was then in existence·.
Q What were most of yoor activities related to?
A Mostly to the union at first, and later anyth:l.ng
that came up,I was sort of general office boy.
Q Did you pay due.s to the Party?
A Yes.
Q How much were the dues?
• A
Q
I believe mine were ten cents a wetk •
Would you describe the conditions under which yai
lived •1th Joe Dallet as those of poverty?
A Yes.
RV 32835 Docid:364792 Page 8

1993
" Bow much rent diCl1 you pay?
A Five dollars a mQnth.
• Q As time went on, did you find that you became devoted
to the Party or more devoted or less devoted or more attached

or less attached?
A I don't think I could ever describe it as a devotion
or even attachment. What interest I had in it decreased.

Q Did Joe's interest decrea~e?
A No, not at all.
Q Was that a cause of disagreement between Joe and
yourself?
• A
Q
I am afraid so .
Did you and Joe ultimately separate?
Q
A
We did.
When -s that?
About June of 1936.
Q Would you say that your disagreement with Joe about
your lack of enthusiasm, shall we say, for the Party, had

something to do with the separation?
A I think it was lllOe3 tly bhe cause of the separation.
•
I felt I didn't -nt to attend Party meetings or do the· kind
of work that I was doing in the office. That made him
unhappy. We agreed that we couldn't go on that -y.

<' Did you remain in love with him?
A Yes.
lllf 3283~ Docld:364792 Page 9

l!i94
Q Where did you go when you separated?

A I joined my parents in England .
•
Q That was about June of 1936.?
A I think it was June.
r Did a time come when you wrote Joe that you were
willing to rejoin him.
A Yes. I wrote him probably very early in 1937,
saying that I would like to rejoin him.
o Did be answer you?
A Be answered sayin[l that would be good, but he waR on
his way to Spain to fitrht for tbe Republic caQse, and
would I please instead meet him in Paris .
• Q
A
Where did you meet him?
I met him at Cherbourir aboard the Queen l\lary as it
docked.
Q That was in 1937?
A Yes. I taink it was March. I am not sure.
Q Did you go with him then to Paris?
A We took the boat train and went to Paris".
Q Bow long did you stay in Paris with him.
A I would think about ten days. It could have been
• a week, it could have been two weeks, but roushly
t Do I understand that be bad a furlough or some time
off or something because of tbe reunion? ·
A That ia right.
RV 3283~ Docld:36,792 Page 10

1995
Q What did you do during that ten days or so :bl Paris?
A We walked around and looked at Paris, went to
•• restaurants, the sort of thing one does :In Paris.
to the museums and picture galleries.

We went
We went to one large

political meeting, a mass raeeting, where they were advocating
arms for Spain.
Q Who was the spealcer?
A Thorez.
Be was a Communist?
A Yes.
Q Do you recall any other political activities if
• that mipt be called one during that period or tat ten days
or so?
A I think one should describe as a political activity
that one place I saw where people who were going to lpain were
being checked in and told bow to do it. I went there once.

Q As a spectator?
A I had nothing to c:b

Q Then Joe went off to Spain.
A Yes.
•
(' During that period did you meet Steve Nelson?
A Y-. I met him :i.n Paris. I saw him several times.
I think Joe and I had meals with him occasionally.
Q Whit did you talk about with hi•?
A I don't know; all kinds of things._ I think among
llW 3283' Docid:364792 Page 11

1996
other things the only thing that interests this .Board is the
fact that we talked of various ways of getting to Spain wh:llh was
•
not easy •
Q Then Joe went to Spain at tbe end of that ten days
or so?
A Yes.
Q What did you do?
A I went back to England.

Q Did you try to do anything about joining Joe?
A Yes, I wanted to very much.
Q What was your plan as to how you would join Joe?
I was told that they would try to see if it were
•
A
possible, and if it were, I would bear from someone in Paris
and then go to Paris, and be told how to get there.

Q Was there talk or your getting a job somewhere :in
Spain?
A Yes. I don't know what, though.
o Were you ultimately told that it was possible?
A I got a letter from Joe saying that be found me a

job in Albacrete.
Q Did you then go to Paris?
• A First I stayed in England and waited quite a while

until OCtober.
Q What year was this?
A 1937. I then got a wire saying I should come to
llW 3283~ Docid:364792 Page 12

1997
Paris, and I went. Do you want me to go on?
Q What happened when you got to Paris?
• A When I got to Paris, I was shown a telegram sayintr
that Joe bad beenkilled in action.

C' What did you do tben?
A I was also told that Steve Nelson was coming back
from Spain in a day or two, and I might want to wait an d see

what Steve bad to sa;ir He bad a lot to tell .. about joe.
Q Did' Steve come?
A Yes.
Q And met you in Paris?
• A
A
Yes .
Did you talk with Steve?
Yes, I spent at least a week tbere. I saw lteve
llOSt of tbe time.

Q Wb&t did you talk about with him.
A Joe, himself, myself.

Q Would you say that Steve was kind to you and sort of
tooa aare of you during this period?
A Be certainly wad, very.
•
Q Did you discuss witb Steve what-you would do now?
A I did.
O Will you tell us what that discussion was?
A For a little while I bad sQma notion of going on
to Spa.b anyway.
llV 3283~ Docid:364792 Page 13

1993
Q Why?
.
A I was emotionally involved in the Spanish cause.
•
Q Did Joe's death have something to do with your wanting
to go on anyhow?
A Yes, as well as if alive he would have.

Q Did you discuss this with Steve?
A I did, but Steve discouraged me. Be thought I
would be out ot place and i.n the way. I then decided that
probably I would go back to the United States and resume my
university career.
Q Is that what you did?

A Yes •
• After you returned to ·the United States, did you
continue to see any of the friends that you had with the
Communists?
A When I first got back I saw som friends of Joe's
in New York who wanted to know about him and to whom I wanted
to talk. I saw some other members of the Communist Party in
New York. I went to Florida with three girls. I know one was
a Communist. I think another one was, and the third one I
• Q
cobtinue?
A
Did that relationship with Communist friends
No, it did not.
Q What happened?
Hlf 32835 Docld:36,792 Page 1•

1999
A I visited a friend of mine in Philadelphia. I
had planned to go to the University of Chicago, and got back
• to the United States to go back. to their second trimester •
I don't know whether they still have that system.

one there.
I knew no
I met a lot of people in Philadelphia, and they
said, "You know all of us, why don't you stay here?·• I stayed
in Philadelphia and entered the University of Pennsylva.nia,
the spring semester of the year 1937-38.

Q What kind of work did you do at the University?
A Chemistry, math, biology.
Q Was bioloey your major?
• A
biologist?
It became my major interest.
Did you continue to do professional work as a
A I did graduate work later and some research.
Q Ultimately you had a research fellowship or
assistantship?
A Both.
Q Where.
A University-of California.
•
Q Dti you remarry?
A Yes.
c Would you give us the date of your remarriage and
the Dlf•D whom you married?

A I married Richard Stewart Harrison, dn English
Hlf 32835 Docid:364792 Page 15

2000
physician, in 1938, in December or November.

Q Was be a Collllllunist?
•
A No .
Be was a practicing physician?
A He bad been, I 111nk, in England. He bad to take
all his examinations in this country and do an internship and a
residency before be could i:ractice here.
Q Did he go to California?
A Yes.
Q And you went with him?
A No. He went to California much earlier than I to
take up this internship .
• Q
.Q
Did you go out there to join him?
Yes •
After graduation in June of 1931? When did you
meet Dr. Oppenhei-r?

A Somewhere in 1939.
Q When were you divorced from Dr. Harrison?
A In the first of November 1940.
r· You then married Dr. Oppenheimer?
A Yes .
• Q Did there come a time after you
Oppenheimer when you again saw Steven Nelson?
A Yes.
married Dr.
Q Will you tell us the circumstances of that?
lllf 3283~ Docld:36•792 Page 16

2001
A I -Will as best I can remember. I remember being at
a party and -eting a girl called llerri-n. I knew of her.
• She was in
action theria.
Albacret~J-
been asked to brine ber

and her husband also got killed in
Tbtreason I reambered her name

SClllllt sox when I came.
is
When
that I had
I met her
at this party, sl:& said did I know that Steve Nelson was
in that part of the country. I said no, and then expressed
some interest in his welfare. SOiie time thereafter Steve

Nelson telephoned me, and I invited him and his wife and their
small child up to our house.
Q What did you talk about?
• A We hd a picnic lunch. The nelsons were very
pleased that they finally bad a child, because they tried fer
a long t1- to have omwithout success. We talkalabout the

old days, family matters.
Q Did you see him apin?
A I think that they came out to our house two times.
Q Was it all just social?

A Yes.
MR. GRAY: What was tbe date of this period,

approxima1Jly? If you have said, I have forgotten •
• a bit vague.
THE WITNESS: I didn't say, !llr. Gray, beeause I am
BY llR. SILVERMAN:
Q Can you give it as closely as you can?
RV 3283~ Docld:364792 Page 17

2002
A Yes. I would guess it was lllte 1941 or perhaps in
1942. I don't know.
•
Q Are you fairly clear it was not later than 1942?
A Fairly clear.
Q Have you seen Steve Nelson since 1942?
A Since wbenever it was?
Q Yes.
A No.
You are no longer a member of the Communist Party?
'
A No.
Q When would you say that you ceased to be a member?
A When I left Youngstown in June 1936.
• Q
A
Rave you ever paid any dues to the Party since then?
No.
Q Will yc:u describe your views on Communism 11.s pro,
antiT neutral"/
A You mean now?
Q Now.
A Very strongly against.
Q And about how far back ., uld you date that?
A Quite a long time. I had nothing to dci w:th
• Connunistm since 1936.
I have already desctibed.
llR. SILVERMAN:
I have seen some people, the ones that
That is all.
llR, ROBB: No questions.
1111 3283~ Docld:364792 Page 18

2003
MR. GRAY: llrs. Oppenheimer, how did you leave the
Co111111unist Party?
• THE WITNESS:
MR. GRAY:
TUE WITNESS:
By walkiDC away •
D:ld you hive a card?
While I was in Younptown, yes.
MR. GRAY: Did you turn this in or did you tear it up?
THE WITNESS: I have no idea.
MR. GRAY: And the act of joining was malting some
sort of payment and receivinc a card?
THE WITNESS: I remember getting a card and signing
my name.
• MR. GRAY: ,Qenerally speaking, as one who knows
solllthing about Co-unism as it existed at that time in this

country and the workings of the Communist Party, and therefore
a probable understanding of this 1ling, what do you think is

tbe kind of thing that is an act of renunciation? That is
not a very cood question. In your case you just ceased to
have any rel& tionships with the Party?
THE WITNESS: I Q8lieve that is quite a usual way
of leaving the Party.
•
MR. GRAY: When you were in the Party in Youngstown,
er when you were in the Party at any time, did you have a Party
name?
TBE WITNESS: No. I had lllJ' own name, Kitty Dallet.
MR. GRAY: Was that the usual thing for people to
llV 3283l Docid:364792 Page 19

2004
use their own na-?
THE WITNESS: I knew of no one with an assumed name.
•
I believe tba t there must have been such people, but I knew
of none.
MR. GRAY: I think the record shows that in some
cases there were people 'IJD had some other name,
THE WITNESS: I think there -re people who lived
under an ass~d name and bad that name in the Party, but
then that .was the only name I would have known.
MR. GRAY: When you saw Steve Nelson socially in
whatever year this was, 1940, '41 or '42, did you discuss the
Communist Party with him? Did he know that you were no
• longer a member of the Commun;.st Party?
THE WITNESS: Yes, that was perfectly clear to him.
MR. GRAY: Did be chide you for this or in any way
seek to reenlist your sympathy?
THE WITNESS: No •.
MR. GRAY: He accepted tbe fact tbatyou had rejected
Communism?
TSE WITNESS: Yes. I would like to make it clear
that I always felt very friendly to Steve Nelson after he
• returned from Spain and spent a week with me in Pilris.
helped me a great deal and the much later meeting with him
v1as something that was still simply friendship and nothing else.
He
MR. GRAY: The people you dealt with :inParis or
3283~ Docid:364792 Page 20

2005
that you saw there were -mbers at the Communist Party. I
have in mind any discussions you bad about going to Spain, both
• before and after your hlBband's death?
TBE WITNESS: I wouldn't know wbo was wr wasn't then.

Many people were going to Span who were not members of the
Communist Party. I think, however, that probably most of 1he
people I saw were Communists.

MR. GRAY: But at that time you were not?
THE WITNESS: No.

MR. GRAY: This was following your leaving the Party
in Youngstown?
• THE WITNESS:
MR. GRAY: Do
That is right •
you suppose they were aware of the
fact that you bad left the Communist Party?

THE WITNESS: I am sure they were. I mean such as
knew me.
MR. GRAY:· This is a question not directly related
to your testmony, but we have bad a *itness before the Bc:ard

recently I might say I am sorry I didn't ask him this
question and this witness referred to Soviet Communism in
•
a general discussion here before the Board. In your mind as a
~ormer member of the Communist Party in this country, can a

distinction be made between the soviet Communism and Communism?
'DIE WITNESS: There are two answers to that as far
as I am concerned. In the days that I was a member al the
HW 32835 Docid:364792 Page 21

2006
Communist Party, I thought they were definitely two things.
The Soviet Union bad its Co111111unist Party and our country bad
•
its Communist Party. I thought that the Co11111Unist Party of the
United States was concerned with probl- internal. I now no
longer believe this. I believe the whole thing is linked

together and spread all over the world.
'
JGR. GRAY: Would you think that any knowledgeable
person should also have that v:i. today?
THE WITNESS: About Co111111unism today?
MR. GRAY: Yes.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I ddl.
JGR. GllAY: I was puzzled by this reference to Soviet
• Communism in April 1954.

a distinction.
But in any event, you would not make
THE WITNESS: Today, no, not for quite a while.
MR. GRAY: But in those days you in your own mind
made the distinction?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
lllR. GRAY: At thnt time the American Communist Party

was not known to you to be taking its instructions from
RUJlsia?
• THE WITNESS:
MR. GRAY:
No.
You testttied that today you are opposed

to the Communist Party and what it stands for.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
i lllf 3283~ Docld:366792 Page 22

2007
MR. GRAY: I am getting back nos to whatever action
of renunciation is. Do you think these days that a person
• can make a satisfactory demo1111tration of renunciation simply
by saying that there bas been renunciation?
THE WITNESS: I think that is too vague for me, Mr.
Gray.
llR. GRAY: All right. I amafraid it i• a little
vague for me, too. I - · t pursue it.

Do you have any questions?
DR. EVANS: .rust one. Mrs. Oppenheimer, I have beard
from people tbat there are .two kinds of co-unists, what we
•
call an intellectual ~ommunist and just a plain ordinary
Commie. Is there sch a distinction, do you know?
THE WITNESS: I couldn't answer that one.

DR. EVANS: I COl\lldn't either. Thank you. I have
no more questions.
llR. GRAY: Thank you very much, Mrs. Oppenheimer.
(Witness excused.)
q llR. GARRISON: llay we take a five minuteJ."ecess?
llR. GRAY: . Yes.

(Brief recess.)
• Lauritsen?
JIR. GRAY: Do you wish to testify under oath, Dr.
DR • .LAURITSEN: I would like to.
llR. GRAY: Will you raise your right hand, please,
Rff 3283~ Docld:364792 Page 23

2008
sir.. IYha t is your full na-?

DR. LAURITSEN: Charles Christian Lauritsen.
•
MR. GRAY: Charles Christian Lauritsen, do you swear
tbat the testimony you are to give the Board shall be the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help
you God?
DR. LAURITSEN: I do.

Whereupon,
CHARLES CHRISTIAN LAURITSEN
was called as a witmss, and baving beell first dul,y sV1orn,
was examined and testified as follows:

llR. GRAY: Will you be seated, please, sir .
• Dr. Lauritsen, it is my duty to remind you of the

existence of the so-called perjury statutes 'llllth respoct :to
civing false informatim, ot cetera. Is it necessary for me
to review those provisions with you, or may we assume you are
familiar with them?
• THE WITNESS: I would be very glad to hear. t.he
essentials.
MR. GRAY: The p1~ovisions of section 1621 of Title
18 of the United States Code, known as the perjury statute,
• -ke it a cri- punisbable by a fine of up to $2,000 and/or

imprisonment of up to five years for any person to state under
-th any material matter which be does not believe to be true.
It also is an offense under section 1001 of Title 18
lllf 32835 DocXd:364792 Page 24

2009
of tbe United States code, pnnisbable by a fine of nor more
than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or
• both, for any person to make any false, fictitious or

fraudulent statement or misrepresnetation in any manner within
the jurisdiction of any agency of the United States.
If, Dr. Lauritsen, in tbe course afyour testimony
it should become necessary for you to refer to or disclose
restr:kted data, I would ask you to notify me in advance so
that we might take certain necessary and appropriate steps.
Finally, I should say to you that we consider. these
proceedings a confidential matter between the Ati:lmic Energy
• Commission and its officials on the one hand, and Dr .

Oppenheimer, his representatives and witnesses on the other.
The Conmission will make no release abolZthis proceeding and this
testimony, andw ezpress the hope that witnesses will take the
same view.
Mr. Marks.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY JIR. MARKS:
Q Dr. Lauritsen, what is your present position, and
•
where?
A I am i:rofessor of physics at the California Institute
of Technolou.
Q How long have you held that post?
A I believe as full professor since 1936. I !are

2010
been at the California Institute since 1926, first as· a
graduate student, later as assistant professor, and
• subsequently associate professor, and full professor •
A
Are you an experi-ntal or theoretical physicist?
Experimental.
Q Dr. Lauritsen, will you describe briefly the nature
of the more important war work that you did during World War II?
Let - sunest that yoll leave out the preliminaries and just
describe as what you regard the most important.
A All right; StaL"ting in July 1940, Icame to Washington
and jointed the National Research Defense Committee which had
•
just been formed in June. The organization consisted of four
divisions, and I was appointed by Dr. Bush as vice chairman
of Division A on armor and ordnance. Mere important things

that we worked on tn that division initially were proximity
fuses and rockets.

Q Will you tell the Board about your wark on rockets
during the war?

A Yes, I will be glad to. In the early sununer of 1940--
I am sorry, 1951 -- Dr. Bafstad and I were sent to England.

c Who is Dr. Bafstad?
• A Dr. Bafstad at ·the present t i • is bead of the
Reactor Division of the AEC. Dr. Barry lfafstad.
sent by the NBRC: to England to discuss proximity fuses with

He a~d I were
them. We brought over tm ·first samples of the proximity fuses
Rff 3283~ Docid:364792 Page 26

2411
we made in this country.
MR. ROBB: I can't hear the witness. Will yai speak
• louder?
THE WITNESS: Shall I repeat? Dr. Bafstad and I

were sent by the National Defense Research Committee to
England on proximity fuses. I had also been interested in

the development of rockets in this country and the program
was in my opinion not very satisfactory at that time, although

I was responsibie for it. I knew nothing about the subject
at that time. So while we were in England in the early summer
of 1941, I obtained all th•' informa:tion that I could on rockets
• in England and on the British rocket program. At the same

time I also obtained all the infor•ti01 I could about the
British atomic energy progi~am.
When I came bad!: :I reported to Dr. Vannevar Bush on
these two .subjects. You wanted particularly to hear about

the rocket program?
BY MR, MARKS:
Q Yes.
A As a result of my report to Vannevar Bush, he asked
•
me to organize an expanded effort on producingaf rockets for
the armed services. This I tried to cbfirst here. in the

east without very much success, and in the fall of 1941, I
went back to Pasadena and started a program at the California
Institute ·for the development of rocke.ts.
llW 32835 Docld:36'792 Page 27

2012
A number cl. my .colleagues had been here 1D Washington
up to that ti- wo:rkiDC on proximity fuses. They went back
•
to Pasadena with me and started this rocket program .
The result of this was that ultimately we produced
all the rockets that were used in World War II by the Navy
.and the Marines and the Air Force.
Q When you say ·•we produced", who do you nean by ·"We"?
A I mean this rocket project at the California
Institute of Technology.
Q Who was the bead of that?
A I was the technical director of that program and
responsible for the technical program •
• Q
A
You mean you produced at the project in Pasadena?
At the project we developed the first tyJ:llof rockets

that we thought were necessary and thatwe could get interest
in that the military thouaht they needed, particularly the Navy.
I worked personally very closely with the Bureau of Ordnance.
We then developed these and tested them, and when they were
agroved, ,,.. produced th- until such t i - as large companies
could get into production.
A typical ezample was the five inch r9Cket, which
• you read so much about that was used in Korea.

developed and we manufactured in Pasadena something
considerably over 100,000, which were used in the European
This one we
theater,. and later on in the Pacific war. Ultimately they

~
~-r--"'"""' ....,...--,,.
HlJ 3283l Docid:364792 Page 28

/.~--------~--_,,~~~=~--..._~....,,~-=~~~~~2~0=13 ·=-
were made by the millioDS. At the end d the war, the total
~-. ~-· < .~,.~~ .
j
budget in tbe Navy for rockets was a 111illion dollars a month, ,/
. /
• I understand •
.
. . ·-- .- .
~~~~~·~--~....,~
Did I understand you to say, however, that your
project in Paaadena produced all the rockets that were used
in World war II.
A All the rocket types, not the individual rockets that
were fired. We produced them only until .large companies could
take over production, which was usually something like a year.
We made all the rockets Wiled in the African landings , in the
Sicilj.an landings, and in a number of the landings in the
• Pacific, like lwo Jima, and many of the others.

several hundred thousand rockets.
Altogether
Our total project added
up to about $80 million spent at the project.
Q How many people did you have under you in that
production work?
A I am not CJ1ite certain, bbt I believe tle number
was something like 3500 at the aximum. This, of oourse, did

not include contractors and subcontractors. These were the
people employed by the california Institute for this purpose.
•
can you tell what importance you attached to tbe
rocket program and why?
A Personally I like' to think that tbe most important
thing was the landincs in the Pacific which

.
ultimately
' i
became
a matter of walkilllC ashore. There were very few casualties
Nlf 3283~ Docid:364792 Page 29

\
2014
due to the heavy bombard-nt of the shore defenses just
before landings -re -de. A number of landings were -de
•
in the Pacific with almost no losses. Of course, the same
thing was true at Inchon. The coast line 111as --
Q Inchon when?
A During the Korean war. The coast line was heavily
bombarded and there was no opposition when we landed. This
is of course not entirely due to rockets, but until they

started usinc the rockets in larce numbers, the losses on
landing operations were very heavy.
Q I don't quite understand whatpart the rockets played.
A The advantap of the rocket is tba t you can unload
• almost a whole ship's cargo of rockets in a ver:v short time
and no shore installations can withstand such bombardment.

Rockets can be fired in huge numbers at one time.
Another application was the application of the five
inch rocket that I just mentioned to airplanes. This made a
very po-rful weapon out of the carrier based airplanes as well
as the s-11 support aircraft used by the Air Force for
•
supportinc ground troops. Tbey are for all practical purposes
equivalent to a five .inch naval gun .
• Q
A
Did the me of rockets represent any change in the
nature of fire power?
It is an enormous increase-in ~ire power at the
moment you need it, in a very short time. You can fire
lllf 32835 Docld:364792 Page 30

2015
thousands.of them in one minute. It would not be possible
to provide enough guns to deliver tbat fire at one time in a
• short period •
Q Apart from the work that you did on development and

production of these new weapons, did you have anything to do
witb the introduction of their use into military operati>ns?
A Yes.
Q Would you describe that?
A Whenever a weapon was accepted for service use, and
we produced the amunition, we usually sent a man along with

the equip•nt to the various theaters to be sure that it
•
was received with some understanding and used in a reasonable
way and. that the equipMnt was kept in operation, and that the
crews were trained. It was usually necessary to spend som
time training crews.
Jrs an example, I might Mntion that I was together
with one or two of my colleagues to Normandy in 1944 to
introduce these rovkets to the Air Force. We equipped some
squadrons and trained them in their spare time, usually at
night after they had been carrying out their daytime missions
and operations. Tiiey were enthusiastic enough about it to work
• on learning how to use them during the evenings.

'
They would
go back from Normandy, so-times, over to England to practice
on a field tha.t we had borrowed from the British. It was
necessary to stay 1111th an operat;l.on like this .long .enough unt:il
lllf ~283~ Docid:364792 Page 31

2016
the weapon was properly used.
Q Bow much experieDCe have you had in this ltind of
•
field work in the introduction of the use of new weapons that
you have been concerned with?
A Usually I did not personally go out with all the
equipment. I did personally goout with some of the first
submarine weapons that we developed, and I took part in many

ot the training exercises on tbe shore bombardment rockets
and on the aircraft rocket I was treq-ntly involved. But
often other members ot our organization were the ones that went
out in the field to help with these thinp.
MR. GRAY: Do you mind if I interrupt tor a minute,
• 114r. Marks?
MR. l\IARKS: Surely.
MR. GRAY: Are you going to relate this to the
'pres•nt inquiry?
MR. MARKS: Yes.
THE WITNESS: I think I have not said anything that
is classified.
llR. MARKS: It the Cbairmn prefers, I would be glad
to get directly to the issue on the present inquiry and then
• go back?
MR. GRAY: I don't want to restrict Yo\1 at all, but

we are in a little different field than we have been discussing
in these bearings.
HW 32835 Docld:364792 Page 32

2017
MR. UAJUCS: I don't want the testimony to be
unintelligible through any point of mine.
• Q
lrlR. GRAY:
BY MR. MARKS:
Let us proceed •
Let us leave this subject and let me ask you
what later work did you do in World War II apart from the
rocket work?
A During 1944 it beca• apparent to \ll that the war
was coming to an end; and that there would probably not be

time to dream up any very important new rocket weapons that
bould be produced in quantity to have much effect on the war.
•
The Navy agreed with us. At that time they decided that they
wanted to take over the operation of tbe facilities that had-
been developed for our purpose, namely, the large test
and development··stat;ion at Inyokern, Ca1fonnia. We lad been
operating that station during tbe war. In 1944, the Navy
decided that they would take that over gradually and also to
take over tbe future development of rocket weapons.
Q What did you do then?
A At tbe request of Dr. Bush and Dr. Oppenheimer and
General Groves, I -nt to Los Alamos to help with the final
• stages of the atomic bomb.
Q What did you do in that capacity?
A Most of what I did was ta.lkiug, I am draid. I
attended numerous meetings of the various d1v1sJ.ons when they
HW 3283~ Docid:364792 Page 33

2018
had meetings trying to make decisions. I would usually attend
these -•tings. I attended -etings d. tbe various steerinc
•
committee• and in general tried to assist Dr. Oppenheimer
in any way tb&t I could on -king decisiou, particularly on
hardware.
Q What do you man by hardware?
A Hardware is all the things that are required to
produce a weapon and all the components that are iecessary for
the weapon itself. They may be electronic gadgets or castings
or uchine parts or ~roduction tools. We bad a considerable
part ~ the responsibility for producing the explosive

components, that is, the conventional explosive components, and
• the various tools necessary and installations necessary for
produc,ing these.
Q Did you hlae a title at Los Alamos? Where did you work?
A I had no title I worked directly iD Dr. Oppenheimer's
office.
Q, Bow long was that?
A Just about one year. I agreed to stay one year, and
at the end of one year the war was over.

Q When you say you worked in his office, you mean
• in the office which he occupied?

A
Q
Yes.
You and he occupi,ed an off~ce 1;ogethei'?
A That is right.
lllf 3283~ Docld:36,792 Page 31

2019
Q Baar long bad you known Dr. Oppenheimer before that?
A I lwe known Dr. Oppenheimer &bee be came back from
• Europe, from Goettingen, which I believe was in 1928 or 1929 .
I' an not certain about the date.
came to Pasadena.
In 1928 or 1929, when 18
Q In the years since that l:late, how well have you

•.
known bim?
A I have known him as well as I have known any member
of our faculty.
Q Comnencing when?
A Very soon. In fact, I probably saw him the date
• he arrived because it happened accidentally that we bad been
interested in the same problem, ae in the theory of it, and
I in the experimental aspects of it. So be looked me up very
soon after he came there, I believe.
A Either in 1928 or 1929 " I could certainly get that
date, but I could not lte very certain at the moment.
Q Did you become close friends"?
A I would say so, ,es.
•
Q Bas that friendship continued?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you observe Dr. Oppenheu,aer durinc the Thirties
and the Forties, and can you say anything about his political
views and activities during that time?
llW 32835 Docid:364792 Page 35

2020
A I cannot say very much about it. I knew very
littleabaut it until, I think, about the time of the Spanish
•
war. This was the first t i • that I kn- that he bad any
political interest. Up to that time I have no recollection
that we ever discussed political questions of any interest or

serious nature.
Q What impression did you come to have of his political
interests?
A It is a little difficult to say because l think
they dlanged a great deal l7ith time. I would say that at one
stage he was very deeply interested in the Spanish Loyalist
cause, and took the attitude that wa• taken at that tims
• by many liberals, the hopo that they could do something about
it, and that they would 1:1.ke to help the Spanish Loyalist cause.
You spoke of his changing vie-. What do you mean
by tut?
A I think it1111s probably a gradual increase in
interest in social causes, a compassion for the underdog, if
you like. The attitude that many liberals took at tbattime.
Q Did you obeerve in him an identification with views
that were regarded as Communist v~ews or with which the
• Communists were associated?
A I think at that time very few of us and perhaps
vei·y few .&n.ricans had very little idea abo11t what Communism
was. I think ID08t of us that were cancerml about political
Rlf 3283~ Docld:364792 Page 36

2021
things and international things were considerably more

concerned about faacism at that time than we were about
• Communism.
Collll!Wnism.
by
Fascism see-d tbe i~iate threat, rather than
Also, I think perha115 my own views were colored
the fact that I was born and raised in DellllllU:lr, v1here
Germany was the natural enemy, rather than Russia. I think
for that reason ~e did not pay as much attention to the evils
of Communism as we should have done.
Q Were you mixed up in any ColDlllunistic activity?
A No.
MR. ROBB: Ur. Chairman, I don't think the witness
• quite answered the question .llr. Marks propounded to him.

wonder if we might have it read back so the witn3ss could have
it in mind.
I
(Question read by the reporter.)

THE WITNESS: I frankly did not know just what
characterized the Communist view at that time. When they

talked about improving the lot of the working people, I
believe Oppenheimer and probably many other people thought
this was a good beginning. But that this was not the whole
•
story of the Communist ideology I think was not realized by
very many people at that time. Does that answer the question?
MR. R<Jm: Yes.

THE WITNESS: It did not occur to 111\11 at that time or
at any other t i - that he was a Communist Party member. In
llV 3283~ Docid:36,792 Page 37

2022
fact, at the date we are talking about, namely, the early part
of the Spanish-American war, I didn't know there was such a
•
thing as
BY MR. MARKS:
Early part of what war?

A The Spad.sh War. Did I say Spanish American?
Q Were you in the Spanish American war?
A No. These are words tbat have just been associated
so long. I was not aware that there was such a thing as a
secret membership of the Communist Party. I don't know if
other people were but I was not.
<' I -ked you, '1 think at tbs time Mr. Robb reminded
• - that you had not answered an earlier question, 'l'lhether you

were mixed up in CoD111unist activities yourself.
A I was not.
Q Was there a difference betw-n :vourself in that
respect and whatyou observed of Oppenheimer at that tine?
A I think I was more pessimistic about what liberals
could accomplish, even if they were trying to accomplish good
things. I was less optilllistic about what you could do about
these activities. Therefore, I took no part in them .
• Q As time went on , did :voa notice any change in Dr.

Oppenheimer's attitude about these matters which you have
indicated as being more optimistic than yours?
A Bow far along are wenow? Are we still in the Thirties?
RW 3283~ Docid:364792 Page 38

2023
0 Let us take the period, Dr. Lauritsen, from the late

Thirties to the early Forties.
• A In the late Thirties, the event that I remember best,

the discussion that I remember best, is the discussion we had,
I believe it was on the day that Russia signed the agreement
with Geruany. This was an event that shocked me very deeply
and we discussed it at considerable lengths.
Q When you say "we", who do you -n?
A I was thinkinir about coll7ersations Dr. Oppenheimer
and I bad on that day, I believe, or at least very shortly
after. I was very convinced that this was the beginning of a
• war and durinir our conversation I am quite certain that Dr .
Oppeniemer agreed with this point of view, and was as
concerned about it as I was.

Q Concerned in what way?
A Afraid that this would lead to war, realizing what a
bad sitmt.tion, what a dangerous situation for the rest of the
world, this combination of Russia and Ger...- could be.
Q Did anything else happen as time went on of that
nature?
•
A This was 1933, was it not? Shortly after that.the
war started. The war was a reality. Tbat is Germany went
into Poland.
Q What if anything djd you .observe ab~ut Dr. Oppen-
heimer's attitude as these events of the late Thirties and early
NW 3283~ Docid:364792 Page 39

2024
Forties progressed?
A You mustrealize that our most intimate contacts at
•
this time during the late l'hirties were limited to the spring
term, because Dr. Oppenheimer spent most of the year in
Berkeley, and only the spring term, part of llay lllll June, in
Pasadena. So: there were considerable intervals when we did
not spend a great deal of time together.
The next thing that I recall was in 1940, and it
was in the spring of 1940 that we at the California Institute

realized· that we would have to change our way of life, and that
sooner or later we would have to pt into war work. As I have
already related, in June lHO, NDRC, the National Research"
• Council was organized and in July I joined. So there were

long periods after that when I did not get back to california
and when I did not see Dr. Oppenheimer.
Q Do you have anything to say -- if you don't, of
course just don't say it -- about your observation of his
views durinc the period '40, '41, '42, '43?
A I can only say that at that time in 1940-41, I saw
Dr. Oppenheimer only rarely, probably only two or three times.
I do rellalber at one time -- I think it was in 1941 -- he did
• not tell me what he was working on, I did not tell him what I
was working on, but he did ask me if I thought that there
would be an opportunity possibly later of his contributing to
the work that we were working on. When I say ."we", I meant
lllif 3283~ Docld:364792 Page 40

2025
ln 1941, Division A, Professor Tolman, who was a very good

friend of both of us, who was tbe Chairman, and l was the
• Vice Chairman. Dr. Oppenheimer expressed the desire perhaps

to join us, because of our old associations.
Q Could you date that t:lllle?
A l could not be sure but l think it ~ 1941.
Q Was it the -rly or latter part of 1941?
.I It was almost certainly either during the spring term,
na-ly, June and July,.early su-r, or else Christmas,

because those were the two ti11SB when we were most.likely to be
in Pasadena at the sa- time. As l say, the rest of the year
• be was as far as I know in Berkeley .

Q So that the nezt intimate, if you can call it that,
contact you had with Dr. Oppenhei•r is'lben you caae to Los
Alamos into his off ice?
A That is rigbt.
o Did you observe anything about his political
attitude then?
A At that ·ti• politics didn't seem very important.
The job was to win the war.
•
o What did you do after tbe war?
A After the war I -nt' back
,, to teach school at
California Institute of Technolo!if.
Q And how lone did You do that without eztensive
outside interests?

2026
A This continued without too much interferencefrom

the outside until the start of the Korean war.
•
Q What cha111e occurred in your owh work after the
commencement of the Ker ean war?
A Actually sme of these activities started before the

Korean war. I may have a little difficulty in getting the
actual date, but I will at least get the sequence.

The first so-called study project that I was asked
to ,:~.:,,~'!}'.~~l~~~-'t!1_e ~~~ell Proj~C,~·

-~--~~~-=·===~
pit iras a contract
..
---·t,;tween the Navy and the llassachusetts Institute of Technology. ·
f
'
(
The purpose of it was to study possible improvements in
submarine warfare that is, ·antisubmarine warfare.
• ~· ~ .. -,
After this study, which was according to the Navy
people that I know quite satisfactory and quite useful to
,,....,......__,,-_,.,-;'.
them, these studies became a habit.

Q Became a habit with whom?
A With the military, and a number of such studies
were originated by the military.
Q Bow aany did you engage in?
A Hartwell, as I say, was the first one. The next
one was called Charles. This was also a Massachusetts
• Institute study. I believe it ;was in the summer of 1951, which

resulted in the setting up of the Lincoln Laboratory, which
n•IJW is considered the most important establishment in this
country for the Air Force program in continental defense.
lllf 32835 Docid:364792 Page 42

2027
Perhaps this was before. Itwas already in the summer of 1950
that we undertook at the California Institute of Technology
•
-~ '_, - -
a study that was c&lled the Vista study. ('The purpose of that
- -- was .....to..... see if methods and tactics and weapons could be devised
- _, ... _ :.- - ,__ '
' ~-- -
tbat would make it possible to hold in Western Europe, rather

than to abandon if the Russians should decide to invade
/
/
'
Western Europe. The assignment we bad was cround and air

combat.
Q From w~om did you get tbat assignment?
A From all three services. It was originally su~gested
in somewhat modified form by the Air Force, but before we
• undertook the program the Army and the Navy joined, and it
was done jointly for all three services and under the
d:liection of the three services.
Q What other connections have you had with military
work since 1950?
A In fact, ever since 1h• war I bave spent a little

time in an advisory capacity at the Naval Ordnance Station
at Inyokern. In the beginning it was merely because of personal

and friendly relations with the technical director up there.
•
Frequently I visited at his request. Somewhere around 1949,
be requested from the Chief of the Bureau of Ordilance an
advisory board which was set up on a formal· bas:ls It was setting
up this thing for the same purpose, but on a formal basis.
This board was organized, l believe in 1949. I was the first
llW 3283~ Docld:36t792 Page t3

2028
Chairman of that board. The board still - t s about three
tim- a year and I am a member of that Board, but no lqnger
•
chairman. We reotate the chairmanship •
This was the only direct connection I had 'l'li. th
mill tary affairs, as I say, until 1950 .
The next thing I was requested to do was to go to
Korea for the Secretary of Defense's office, the Weapens
System Evaluation Group. I went there in October and November
of 1950. The Korean war started, I believe, in June 1950.
Assuming this is correct, then it was in October or November

of 1950.
What else have you done alone these lines?
•
Q
A I am still on two panels of the Scientific Advisory

Board of the u. s. Air Force, one panel on explosives and
ordnance, the other panel .on nuclear weapons. I an a member
of an advisory boa.rd to tbe Research and Development Coamand
of the Air Force in Balti111C>re. I am a member of.a panel on
armament.
Q Since 1950, how 1wch of your time has been devoted
to this work connected.with military affairs?
A Including hamework and travel, it is probably about
• half my time.
Q
A
Since 1950?
Yes.
Q In these connections, did you bave anything to do
IRf 3283~ Docld:364792 Page •4

2029
with much top secret material?

A Yes .
• Q
these matters?
A
Do
Yes.
yai have what is called a o clearance :Ill all of
Q In this work commencing witl the Korean war, what

associations have you had with Dr. Oppenhei-r and to what
extent has his work and yours overlapped 0r coincided?
A I believe the first contact on these problems was in
connection with an ad hoc co-i t t - in the Research and
Development Board. It was an ad hoc committ- of the Committee
• on Atomic Energy in tbe Research and Development Board.

bad meetings around Christmastime or I auess January 1951
probably December 1951 and January 1952 -- the prupose of this was
We
to make recommendations to the Research and Development Board

and the llilitary Liaison Committee on long range planning
and production of atomic weapons. I think this was the first
contact.
I was, and as fai· as I know, still am, a consultant

to this permanent committ- of the Research and Development
•
Board •
Wba t other conmctiom did you have with Dr.
Oppenheimer in this work? By "this work" I mean the general
activities of yourself in the mil~tary field since the Korean
war· ..
Jllf 3283~ Docld:364792 Page 4~

2030
A I believe the ne:'!'.t connection or perhaps this was even

before - s on the Vista Project, where we asked Dr. Oppenheimer
•
to help us on a particular chapter cm whic:bhe was better
informed than most of the rest of us.
Q In connection with tie work at MIT on continental
defense, did you have any association with Dr. Oppenheimer?
A Yes. I cbnot recall whether Dr. Oppenheimer was
present or took part in tbJ first study, 1he one I referred
to as the Charles study, but after the Lincoln Laboratory
got under way, there was a subsequent study the following
su111111er at which Dr. Oppenhaimer and I were bolh present

, part of the time. The main purpose of this study was to see :If
• the Lincoln Laboratory could somehow be improved, whether

they were doing the riirht ·things, and whether we were
covering all the important aspects of continental defense.
Q In your observations, do you care to make any comment
about the nature of his contributions to these various

endeavors that you have described?
A I think they -re very important. It is always hard
in a larp group like that to know who contributes most. It
is a joint effort •
• Q What was your own purpose in all of the military
work that you have been doing since Korea, speaking generally?
A My own purpose is to contribute to avoiding a war
i:f - possibly can. To be somewhat more specific, I think my
llW 3283~ Docld:364792 Page 46

2031
1eueral. thinking was very much influenced by the detailed

objectives of the_ Vista study.(namely, the objectives :;-"'-~' -
•
•. ··- .)~~:..: ..... -...~...-:l~·.-.:;:-r·1-..:-·:::...• '"·-·' ·- .
discouragin~ the Russians from trying to occupy Western Europe,

and at least make sure that they cannot win Western Eunnpe
by military meana without se:d:>us destruction.
o Without serious destruction to whom?

I
fi A To property and equipment. We believe that the

greatest dancer would be if they could somehow occupy Western
\ Europe intact'~~_~~ w~r_::_:,,_"._ ,;-"'"--~· ~

,_. ,_._ .. -'_-.,,,__.,..._. .,,.. ...,..,~--~"""'---
- -,___ .,-- -~·-~ -Q A1ain speaking cenerally, how did you ci ve
expression to this purpose in the work you did and the
• policies you advocated?

A We did that by cetting a great deal of help from the
military, especially from the people that bad fou1ht over there
·orerr rt<iitr ··:,e.·· ·&- %1- ·, ·.:.:_..::n.-···_,,..· ...,.,~-. -._:i......:,.. ___ ,
in World War 11,'jto determine where we should try to hold a \

.,.- ,
=-~ ...
H line, to what extent we could malle preparations ahead of time
tn With such things as dellOlitions and land mines and weapons
, that were placed in position ahead of time and dispositions
of ground forces. In prticular, since our problem was ground a.nd
air combat --
•
Q You are speaking of Vista.now?
A Of Vista. Bow we could get more effective
cooperation, more effective assistance from the Air Force,
so that the armies could hold, or at least so that they would
\ go backwards as slowly as possible. ~ .- .

·-
·.,._...:: . - ..
.- .--.
'
.. . --~ ---.~ -;-
,-,-·· ......-::. ·. - ..
2032
~ What part did consideration of atomic weapons play
in this work?
• A We felt that if atomic weapons --

, MR. RCl3B: . Excuse - · The witness said "we.
he identify who he is talking about for clarity?
Could
TBE WITNESS: I am talking about the Vista project.
llR. Ram: I nean the individuals, in the interest al.

clarity.
BY MR. llARXS:
q Would you try to do that?

A I will be very glad to try to do that. The way the
• Vista project was operated was that a group of us would be

together usually for a couple of hours every morning, and
discuss what we were trying to do -- trying to formulate •hat

our understandiDC of the problem was. This group consisted of
Dr. DuBridge, the Director of the project, Dr . Fowler, and
a number of the senior -ll!hers of the Insti.tute faculty, like

Dr. Bacher and myself, and also the heads of the various
subdivisions of the project. With us would usually be
visiting people or peopla that wl could somehow persuade to
•
spend t i - with us. As an ezample, I misht mention that Dr .
Wedemyer spent severaJ -•ks with us, ad Gealtral Quesada spent
& good deal of tine with us. We kept notes during these
discussions and tried to write up wha~ 'IV9 thought was a sensible
program aa a result of these discuasions.
IR:J 3283~ Docid:364792 Page 48

2033
Q lfbat about Dr. Oppenheimer?

A I doubt if be was ever present aa any of the
•
daily strategy sessio1111. If be was, it was only one o~ two
occasio1111.
Q What part did be play in the ultimate formulation of
tbe Vista report?

A Be played an important part in expressing our ideas
----~·~----·-
;-.".:..-· -- .
.,
OD t.the specific subject of bow to use tactical atomic weapons
in connection with supporting ground operations. This was
one particular chapter, called Chapter 5. On that chapter be
was very helpful.
Q Wbo were the ot!wrs who worked on thatc:bapter?
• done
A Yost of the preliminary planning and writing was
tbe discussion was usually ba~een Dr. Bacher, Dr.

Christie and myself, and I think most of the preliminary
writing was done partly by Dr. Bacher and part by Dr. Christie.
Q Did Dr. O penheimer help on tbat?
A Not in the preliminary stages, but later on in
arranging tbe material and presenting it in tbe final form, be
helped. He made a very important contribution.
Q If you can put i·t briefly, what was tbe essential
• point of this Chapter 5 on atomic weapona tbat you have been

talking about?
A Zhe essential point was that we felt tbat without
the use of atomic weapons to support gr(>und operation, to
RV 3283~ Docld:364792 Page 49

2034
destr~y mass attacks like we have seen in World War II so

often on the Russian front, and like we bave seen in Korea.
• To hold it waa necessary to have atomic weapous that could be

delivered on short notice, and 'llllth high ac.curacy in all
kinds of weather. We felt that with the growing, stockpile, it
was wise and besides, that it was necessary in order to solve
our problem. But in any case, we felt that; it was wise to
use part of our stockpile or to divide part of the stockpile
so that itcould be used for this purpose if it was necessary.
We believe it was necessary in order to resist agtression.
Q Did this - n that you were opposing strategic air
• use of atomic weapous?
A
, , - - - --.-·
Not at all •. It llleant that -
• _..: ·rc.--..0 Jt •. ~.~- ,._.,: •' :-.•.; ,r,':'......_=.'-!- -
was rapidly getting sufficiently large so that'it would not

·-· . . . ~" .
~
·
felt
· -
tbat~"-6-tOC:~P~
~ " -
b~ ·o~t~rat..,til~pons.
--- • ,.,J
;ise to devote.all
Q There has already been testimony in these proceedings
about a trip to SHAPE which was made by yourself and a number
of others in connection with the Vista report in the latter
part of' 1951. Could you dercribe the circu-tances of that
trip, why it was made and what you did?
•
A This was at the t i - when the Vista report was
1118ariug completion. It was in what we coDBidered very close
to its final form. so- of tbe people on the project,
especially Dr. DuBridse, felt that it would be very. important
·to discuss the proposals, especially the more radical

2C36
proposals in tactical change in airport with the staff
of the Surpeme lieadquarters. Some of the Secretaries, -X believe
•
especially Secretary Lovett, thought this was ~ound before
the report went in officially. »o the arrangements weire made
and Dr. DuBridge, Dr. Oppenhi!imer, and Dr. Whitman nnd I went
over to discuss the Vista report with the planning staff at
Supreme Headquarters.
Q Why did you take Dr. Oppenheimer along?
A Because we felt that people would be more likely
to believe what be said abaut wbat we could do about atc•mic
weapons than what any cJI. tile rest of us said. Also, he
•
learns very fast, and we thought we might lea.'!'n soeeth:i.ng
while we were CN er there
0 Was there any difference between your views and
his about the use cJI. atomic weapons?
A Not that I know of.
q As a result of your visit to Supreme Headquarters
toward the·end of 1951, didyou make any essential changes :In
your report?
A There were no essential changes. There were changes
oin wording, in expression, and the way the material was
• presented perhaps in some places, but there was no char:ge in
t~-~e~s'-e-~:.;~~a §' usi: ~;om;~· weapon~ f;-~up~~~~~ng

.re;;: ground--t~~~p~ and making it possible to hold as far forward
-·- ~
as possible. - ... - - -- __ .,...__ --
IRf 3283~ PocXd:36A792 Page ~1

2036
Q When you speak of using atomic weapons in support
of ground troops, are you s1oeaking simply of a differen·l: ldnd
• of use of atomic weapons, or are you sieaking of different
kinds of atom1c weapons than those which would be used
in strategic?
A They would in general be quite different
Q Bad they been develloped?
A They bad no·t been developed and tactfe for delivering
them had not been developed at that time.
Q What were you advocating then?
A We were advocating the development and use of
• weapons that wo~1ld be suitable for precise del:lvery at close
range fb:m our troops and in all kinds of wea tiler. f·~;s
( that could be e111Ployed at very low altitudes. Up until that
time it wasnot possible to delive1· a weapon a·t low altitude
( because you would blow yourself ~P if you tried to clo eo. So one
a& the essentiall requirements was to get a wea"on that you
could eeliver at: low altitude in bad weather w:lth
~-a~:~:a~;j ~~ felt that b; ~:~creasi~ ·~;e--~~~~;-~-;· you could
•
economize on material. You see if accuracy is poor, yc.u must
a very
have/large explosive to destroy a target.· If the accnracy is
high you can ge·t along with a auch snaller weapon.
Q I thii1k there has been a suggest ion in theSE>
proceedings that: in the course of going through variouE•
l1lf 32835 Docld:36~792 PA!Je 52

203'/
drafting stages, the Vista report changed s,,bs~;ant:ia :Lly from
tim to time in respect of Chapter 5. Would you comment on
•
that?
A I hope it improved due to discue:~'ions with very
many people.. The purpose was ~till the sam. Thex·e ·~m:s notl11:l.ng
changed tba t made :l. t les:;s useful for our pw·pose. T.oore was
n.o singificant change in the methods propos0d, as fa:~ as I !mow.
I can say I was still ha19py with the final \"ersicnof the rep•:ll"t.
I think ~.t would accomplish our purpose.
Q Row about soaa of the intervening drafts?
A Tiii.ere were a number of those. Th«,re were not n.eaJL'ly
as many as there would have been if I had !wen writing it .
• ll!ost people nead more than one draft. As a rei;ul t of
discussions soma wording was changed, or pe1·haps som3 emphas:i.s
was changed, but the general purpose and important id:ias in
that chapter were not changed as far as I know.
Q Just so that we can be clear, Dr. LarJritsen, will
you say again what that essential purpose wics?
A That essential purpose was to try to develop
weapons -- in particular in Chapter 5, of atomic wea:pons
.:: :.u:::!~': ir;::~..~~~~:~~-~~: f'r-":k,~n~ i·~ ~~~~~~-~~ to.
• f-
r/,..operate an army in Western Europe and to
. Western Euor!'pe.
re~:ist
One plan in this was to df1velop weapons
specifically for destroying the Russian Air Force on the gz-ound. ,

aggression in
I . ·1
\...,__The second W'dS to des~~oy mass attacks which a3 we b1ve '
'·"'5'-,__,,. ___
,--~.- ....... - . - .,,- • --.-. ... . . -- ..
~"'l··-··-~--
.... -.--..-.
·-~ ~
---· ---- .__,..---
;:;"":

.. - -
~ ..
2038
-
learned by sad experience we have no way of resisting. If we
Ii could force U.se concentrations and then strike them w:l th

,,f
• ~-
appropriate atomic weapons, we believed a breakthrough would
be vel"y difficult.
Q
!n fact, it might not be a.ttempted.
In any of these drafts did the essential attitude
that you have described with respect to strate·gic use <>f
atomic weapons as contrasted witll the new tactical use:; change?
A I think not. Certainly not to the extent that this
was lost sight of because this is what made tbe Vista
proposals as a whole possible.
Q When you speak of this, I am not sure I know w?lat
• you mean .
//-.by tactical use, I

A,".·" I !Rian the tactical use
~~~-primar;;~~~~~~~:;~;;;~~~~;;i;.~ations
the attac:k on Rusn:~
\...,_in your immediate front, mass concentrations. ------· c.c--,.._,.,,_.-,--<

.. -.. . '
~-~-~-:.-~-...__ --.. ··.; .•-~--:-;::-.. ...:::r•;..-~.:~.:-:•7 ••-~~~~:"""~-·.:,:t..~~:----..-~. _
..: ,·:· -~- _ -~- --~-~--=- ~,
Q Did you at all times think that was consistent with
the maintenance of a sti•ong strategic air forca?
A Y!s~_; :hi:~. th!':.~~ e~e-nc~e-tr~~,=o~

·( stockpil~..,,~~k.~,;~~-~~~s!~ e~~~~~~'~}~/ But even at that time l
think it was sound to start on this development.
•
Q Again by this development, ym mean tactical use .
A Weapons that could be delivered with high aec,uracy
in any kind of weather(irom a.ny altitude, incl11ding ver·y 100

le~-} -·- . .- . . -- ... - _.,. -- . -·---~--- ···"!.·.:·-·.--:--:--:::~-
Q Will you turn your mind now, Dr. Lauritsen, 1:0 the

2039
studies that you referred ·i;o having to do with continental
defense at MIT. What was th•& relation in your mind between
•
the ·efforts that were being made in those studies, what was
the relation in your mind betwe(ln those studies and those
efforts and the poU.cies that you advocated w:l.th respeut to
tactical and st:rategic use of atomic weapons o:l." any kind of
weapons?
P.1 I am not sure I llndersta.m yollr question. I am not
sure there is any relation except as far as oru:r over.all
military effort is concerned. May J[ say why I was interested
in Lincoln? ls that wbat you are trying to get at?
Q That is correct •
• A We kn•!W by that time, by the time of the firi;:t study
on Lincoln, naw!ly, the Charles study, that ti:u3 Russia.us bad
or iery soon woulcll have a very considerable ca19ability o·f
striking
r
us i,,i th
.- . - ,. . :'. ., .. •f*' ~...,_~~..z::::;;:r;.~~s.A-1-~-..;;::io..;.._ ....:.._...-......._...:...-...:... _1..>--"'~.... -"e.;~--
the same kind of weapons that we were plannin~_/

,
---:. ),,
-~~ .- .·.·-:.r:--:a;-~·- .·"'.-r:;_,;::..-.:-~.--

\tO use in o~ strategic atta~k on Russia. /we l'.tnew they bad an
'-.:_ ., . . . --- ..
Air Force that was capable ol coming over hcn"e and delivering
those weapons. We felt it was important first of all to
get as early warning as we cr>uld of a possible attack, Second,
that it was important to be able to shoot down as many of
• these bombers before they reached our strategic air fields
_;nd our principal. cities. (n1is

.. =c---'-'-" -.,-" . ·-
_._,,:;.-==-··===---·--~··"'-~·-
was'"·t·h~ p~j)C)se ~~ ~ha Charl:,_;

'~)
lllR. ROES: Could we have a date on this, Mr. l\larks,
I llW 3283~ Docid:36,792 Page ~~

2040
approximately? ·
THE WITNESS: The Charles study? I can certainly
• find that. It was either 1950 or 1951. _(it was the

..... - -~....·~·~:·,..:....;.-.::;:;,_-~..-·.-~·;., -~ ,.., .•,.::·.::.~.:."-.~-.-,._"'._..-_
study on air defense. There had been previous study by a
'••
fir::,-~,,.\
\
panel of the scientific ad·visory board in the Air Forca, and
there was a project going on improving some of the radar
\
stations in this country. This was going en at the ti:ue of
the Charles study was star,ted. The Charles study concluded 1~
,.
that this was a very sound effort, but utterly inadequate •
i
,,
•,
• because they are already here when these radar stations
pick them up. They were primarily for the purpose of !
~
,.
'
Ii
• 1 organizing our interceptors.
be pushed out as far as possible in order to make better use

of our interceptors and to concentrate them where the attack
We felt that the warning should ~
was going to come, and also in order to make possible some .~

fl
sort of civilian defense, which is hopeless without some ,.r·

I
warning. So our purpose was to get at least an hour or two)
--
- ...
warning while under the old system you bad no warning.
--..... ~ .. , -~· .. . .. - -. . - --- - . - - , --r-__.
BY mt. MARKS:
Dr. Lauritsen, lat me see if I can get at the
•
question that I put to you rather badly a moment ago. Do you
believe that we Dled a strong strategic air?
A I do.
Q Do ym believe that we need strong developments and
strong capabilities in respect of tacti~l use of atomic

20·il
weapons?
A I do.
•
Q Do you believe tbat we need a strong continental
defense'?
A Yes.
Q Taking into account what you know of the relation
between scientific develop-at and military affa:IB, and

taking into account what you know of ·our capa!>ilit:l.es and
potential, do you regard these three views that youhava
expressed as consistent or inconsistent?
A I think they are consistent.
Q To what extent can you say of your own knowledge
• that the views you have j11:5t described are similar to or diff-
erent from the views tbat you know Dr. Oppenheimer to hold?
A I believe he qr<aes with me. Be has worked hard on

all of these three things. I think his purpose bas been the
same as mine. Be may have sometimes thought of it differently
in different details. The aims have been the same, I am
convinced, and we bave agr.,ed in general.

Q Dr. Lauritsen, what opinion do you have about
Dr. Oppenheimer's loyalty and character? By loyalty I mean
• loyalty to the United Stat"8.

A
Q
I have never had any reason to doubt it.
Do you think you could be mistaken about this?
A I suppose one can always be mistaken, but I have

•
ll1f 32835 Docid:36•792 Page 57

2042
less doubt than any other case I know of.

Q Less doubt than in any other case?
• A
A
Than in any other person that I know as well.
Do you know many people better?
Not many. I suppose I know my own son better,
but I don't trust him any more.
( To what extent would you trust Dr. Oppenheimer's
discretion in the handling of classified information,
restricted data?
A You are referring now to recent years when he under-
stood these problems, I hope. In that case I think I would
•• trust his di•cretion compl!tely. I tllnk in the early Thirties

very few of us knew anything about discretion and were not
very conscious of seclll"ity. Whether he had been indiscreet
at that1De, I don't know. It is possible. It is possible I
have been indiscreet. But I am sure after· he understood what
security meant, and what was involved, that he .has been
as discreet as he knew how.
Q What do you mean by as discreet as he knew how?
A As discreet as it is possible to be and try to
•
get some work done •
Q Do you have any idea about whether your views about
the needs far and the possilbilities of being discreet are any
different than his?
<i. I think they are 110 different n~, certainly.
llW 32835 Docld:364792 Page 58

2043
Q Let us take the period commencing in 1944, when
you went to IDs Alamos. Is that the span of years you are
talking about?
• A During that period this would apply.

time he knew tbe importance of tbe information we had.
At that
MR.· MARKS: That is all, lh·. Robb.

MR. GRAY: I think it would be well to 'llreak for a
few minutes at this point.
(Brief recess.)
MR. GRAY: Mi:-. Robb, will you proceed.
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY J.IR. R<lm:
• f' Doctor, ck> I understand that you have known Dr.

Oppenheimer both professianally and socially?
A That is correct.
Q Dave you visited him from time to time at his ranch
in New lllexico?
A I have visited him I think twice.
Q When was that, sir.?

A About tbe middle Thirties -'35.or '36, I believe.
r· Do you also know Dr. Oppenheimer's brother Frank?
• A
A
Q
I do.
When did you meet him, sir?

I believe I met him for the first time at the ranch
in 1935 or 1936. I may have seen him once before, ltut I am
l1ff 32833 Docid:364792 Page 59

\
2044
am not quite sur.
Q Was be on tbe faculty at Cll Tech?
• A
A
Be was a graduate student.
Under you?
Yes.
Q Did you get to know bim pretty well, too?
A I got to know him quite well in the laboratory.
P And you saw bim on tbe rancb, also, I take it?
A Yes.
Q Did you know bim at Lo& Alamos?
• Yes, I did •
• Q
A
Have you seen him since tben very frequently?
Not frequently. I have seen bim. Most rece:dly last
year at a meeting of tbe Physical Society in Albuquerque, New
Mexico.
Q Up until the end of if, did you have any reason to
believe that Frank was a Communist or bad been a Communist?
A No, I bad no reason to believe tbat until be made
that statement himself.
Q Wbat would you say about Frank'.s loyalty?
•
A I have no reason. to doubt his loyalty.
Q And bis clu&racter?
A Bis character is very good.
Q You would Eke about tbe same ans-r about l!-im that
you do about Dr. ~penbeimer?

2045
A Yes, I would think so. Bis judgment was perhaps

not as good as Dr. Oppenheimer's.
• Q Yes, sir. I notice that you made some little
distinction between Dr. Oppenheimer's present appreciation

of security and bis appreciation in the past of security.
A I think that applies to all of us.
Q Yes, sir. You su~gested that there might have been

so- change in Dr. Oppenbei1ner's attitude m those matters.
A On bow important you think it is, bow seriously you
take it.
Q Would you care to tell us, Doctor, when you think
•
that change took place?
A I think we all learned about it during tbe war.

Q You think Dr. Opponbeimer learned about it dui~ing
that period?
A That would be my judgment. I think this was true
of most of us that bad bad little to do with military things
until that time.

(" I see. Did you know llany of Dr. Oppen~eimer's
friencSs?
A I knew of bis friends in Pasadena and sae of bis
• friends in Berkeley.
A
;, That .is up until 1:be war years, is that right?
That is right.
<' Did you know a man named Frank B:. Malina at Pasadena?
MW 3283.5 Doc_Id: 364 792 Page 61

2046
A Yes, I did.
Q Who was he, Doct•>r?
• A Be was first, I believe, a graduate student and

later a research fellow in the aeronautics department on a
special project that had to do with rocket developments.
Q Was he working u~der you?
A No, he was not. When I first went to Pasadena I

knew of his work. I did n•>t know of him personally. I hoped
to get him to undertake tho rocket work at Pasadena. However,
we did not agree on what si!Jould be done, so I dropped the

subject and -nt to Pasade!la myself to do the work. We had no
• connection with their development, which incidentally resulted

in the so-called assisted ·~akeoff system which is not a. weapon
fur a method for getting aircraft with overload or from

too short strips.
Q What tbey cal·led JATO?
A That is right.
1 Bid you suspect at any time that Frank Malina had

any Communist connections?
A I bad no way of lcnowing. I did not know him
•
personally •
Q You did not suapoct that?

A I had no way of knowing. I did not know him
socially. I never have assoc~ated with him. I have only
talked with him a f - times when 1 tried to ret him interested
llV 32835 Docid:364792 Page 62

•
2047
in this projec·t.
Q At least you knew him well enough to suggest that be
•
come help you on the project?
A That is right, I knew of his work.
Q Did you spspect that he had any Communist connections?
A I had no idea, no.
Q Did you know a man at Pasadena named lliartin
Summerfield?
A I had a student at one time in a class, not in
my laboratory, by that tuune. I believe he 1ater worked at the
jet propulsion laboratory but I have bad no connection ~ith
•
him since be was a student;
0 That jet Pl"OPolsion laboratory was a part of Cal
Tech?
A It is a contract with the Army l!lrdnance Corps that
is administered by cal Tech, but it bas no other connection
with Cal Tech. It has tbe same relation as Los Alamos has
with the University of California.
Q You never had any suspicion, of course, that Martin
Summerfield had any Communist connections?
A I had no way of knowing.
• i
Q
Did you know Dr. Thomas Addis at Berkeley?
No.
Did you know a David Adelson at Berkeley?
A No.

2048
Q Did you knew a couple named Henry Barnett and Shi1•.lay
Barnett?
• A
A
At Los Alamos?
Yes.
Yes.
Q Who were they?
A Be was a doctor, I believe.
Q Who was she?
"
t'.n
A I think she was a secretary.
Q To whom?
A To Dr. Oppenheimer, I believe, or assistant secretary.
• Q Did you ever have any reason to suspect that they had
any Communist connections?
A No.
Q Did you ever suspect that?
A No. I would have no way d knowing.
Q Did you lmow a llBD named David Bohm at Berkeley?
A No, sir.
IQ Did you·ever meet a woman named Louise Bransten?
A Not that I know of.
Did you ever know a man called Haakon Chevalier?
•
Q
A No, sir.
Q You never met him?

A No, sir.
,,
Q Did you know a man n&Jll!'d Robert Raymond Davis at Los

Alamos?
A I can't recall. I can't be sure. Davis -- the
•
name sounds familiar. Was he a physicst at Los Alamos?
I believe so. In all events, you didn't know him
well if you knew him.
A I certainly did not know him well. I have no
recollection of knowing him.

Did you ever kncwa. man up at San Francisco named
Isaac Folkoff?
A No, sr.
Q Did you know a ma~ at Berkeley nall¥lld Max Friedman?
A No, sir •
• A
Q
Did you know David and Francis Hawkins at Los Alamos'!
I knew David Hawkins,~.
Who wli.s David Ba.wkins? .

not !'rancid Hawkins.
A David Hawkins was, I guess you would call him a
historian. When I knew him he was writing the history of the

project.
Did you know him before he began to write the history

of the project, Doctor?
A I knew him probably from the time I joined Los Alamos,
• that is, from Septedlllr 1944.
A
You didn't join until September 1944?
That 1s right.
Q Do you recall what Hawkins was doing then?

2050
A No, I don't. I think he was already then thinking

.about this histor)T, but I am not·quite sure what he was doing.
• Q
connections?
A
Did you ever suspect that he ever had any Col!'.111unist
No, sir, I did not know him personally.

Did you know a man at Berkeley named Alexander s. IW.un?
"
A No, sir.
Q Did you know a man at San Francisco na111Gd Rudy
Lambert?
A No, sir.
(' Did you know a man at Ban Francisco named Lloyd
•
Lehmann?
A lq sii:. If any of these people are physicists
it is quite possible I have met them at one time or another,

but I have no recollection of knowing them.
Q When I say Sen Francisco, I mean the area ci. San
Francisco to include Berkeley.
A Yes.
Q Did you know a man named Giovanni Rossi Lomanitz
up there?
No, sir •
•
A
Q Did you know a man in San Francisco named Kenneth illay?

A No, sir.
Q Did you know a man named Philip Morrison at Los

Alamos?
llV 3283~ Docid:36,792 Page 66

, 2051
A Yes.
C> Who was he?
•
A He was a theoretj.cal pbysics t •
Did you come in c:ontacf.; with him frequently?
A ! saw him quite frequently. In fact, I knew him
before I went to Los Alamos. Be was a student of Dr.. Oppen-
heimer who occa:;ionally while he was a graduat& student came
during the spring term to Pasadena w:l th Professor ~penheimer.
Q D:!d you ever sspect he had any Communist connections?
A No, sir.
Did you know a man at Los Alamos named Eldred Nelson?
A I knew Nelson, but I do not recall him at Los Alamos .
• I recall him the )ear after.
in late 1945 aul 1946.

Be was in Pasadena tho year --
Q Did you know anything about his background and
associations?
A Not any.
0 Did you know a man at I.Os Alamos named Bei·nard Peters,
and his wife, Hannah Peters?
A Is be the physicist who later was at Rochester?
Q Yes, sir.
• A I did not know him at Rochester, but I met him since
the war. I mean I diln't know him at Los Alamos.

Q Did you know him.at Berkeley?
A No, sir.

2052
Q Have you ever suspectec1 that he has ever had any
Communist connections?
• A
A
I heard that after the war.
After the war?
Yes; I did not know hiM before.
Q How did you happen to hear tbat?
A The way I heard about :l.t was that two years ago the
Physical Society had a meeting in llexico City, and l was
president -- no, I was elected l was vice pr.esident of
the Physical Soc:iety. Dr. Rabi Vias the president of the
Physical lociety. He was at tbat time in Italy at a UNESCO
• meeting, so I \r.is requested to represent the Physical Soc:tety
in Mexico «!ity. There was ad. invited paper on the program
to be given by a physicist who had worked with Petez·s. It was
joint work that was to be presented. This invited speaker
died in the mea1atime crwas killed in an accident, X believe,
and some of Pe.ters' colleagues requested tba t the Physical
Society should appoint him the invitad speaker to give this
paper. They reiferred to me as tbe highest official in the
country .at the 1time.
•
Q The senior officer present .
A Tba t :ls right. Uoweve1·, I referred it back to the
Secretary of the Society, who habitually handled all of tbose
things. So I avoided the decision. But this was the first
time as far as I remmber that 1 had met Dr • Peters .
3283~ Docid:364792 Page 68

Q Bow did the Communist business come into it?
A It came in because s111100one told me to be <eareful about
•
this, because he might not be able to get permission to go
into Mexico. So that is the reason l did not want to invite

him.
c Did he appear?
A He did, but be appeared without off:icinl invitation
fi:om the Societ:v.

That was two years ago·?
A I think so, two or three.
Q Did you ever know a man uP in the San Francisco areo.,

named Paul Pinsky?
• A
Q
No, sir.
Did you ever hear of him?
A I tlUnk I have heard tile na111e, but it doesn't ne an
anything to ae, and I certainly do not know him personally.
'-l Did you ever know a man in the San Francisco area
named William Sellneicierman?
A No, sir.
Q Did y·ou ever hear of h:lm?

A I ha·ve heard the name •
• Q
Q
It do<SSn't aean anything to you?
No, sir.
Did you know Robert and Charlotte Sarber at Los
Allmos?
Hlf 3283~ Docld:36,792 Page 69

A Yes, sir.
c Do you know anything about their po:>l:I. t.ical background?
• A No. There again I ha(i known them long bef=e the war.
Dr. Serber was again one of the students that callie clown during
the spring term with Dr. Oppenheimer. · So I got to !mow them
long before the war, and saw qu:l.te a bit· of tbe111. at !.os Ala.inos.
Q Did you ever suspect 1:hat Mrs. Serbar had auy
Communist connections?
A No, I did not suspect tba t she bad Con:munist
connections, I would say that I thought she was again what I

would call an optimistic liberal.
• such, went?
A
That :l.s as far as your suspicion, i1 you can call it
That is right.
Q D:ld you ever know a man named Joseph Weinterg?
A In Pasadena or in Berkeley?
Q In Berkeley or Pasddena.
A No. l know only of what x read in the papers. lie
is Scientist X, is that not cor1·ect? I do no't know him. As
far as I know, I have never met him.
•
Q You don't know anything about him?
A No.
Q Do you know anything about the orga;aiza tions t•> which
'Or. Oppenleimer may have belonged in the late Tb.irties and
e.vly Forties?
ll1f 3283~ Docid:364792 Page 70

A No, I do not. I assUlllJ yOll do not :refer to the
Physical society or the Na.tional Academy?
•
Q No, sir. E mean the other organizations •
A No.
Q Doctor, you said that Dr. Oppenheimer played li'.n
important part in expressing the ideas of your group in Chapter
5 of the Vista report. ; Would you tell us just what that part
was that Dr. 0ppenheimer played?
A I think you know that llr. Oppenheimer is ve•·y
articulate
Q Yes, sir.
A He is . very good at e:tpre:ssing ideas clearly and
• understandably.
Q
A
Yes.
This is primarily what I had reference to.
Q You rman he drafted that part of the report?
A There were several drafts before he cam out the
first time, 11111 then there were any discussi·ons afterwards.
!'le wording lias modified more or less continuously until
the final version was accepted.
o Dz•. Oppenheil!IElr • s part was in preparing that f ine.l
• draft?
A The f:lnal draft and possibly some in·l:ermediate di'afts
where the wording was somewhat different, perlllaps the emphasis
somewhat different, but as far as I know, the main theme was

2056
the same.
Q Was tba t final draft presented at a DE' e·ting out in
• Pasadena?
A Yes. In j~act, even earlie1· drafts wei·e Pl'esented
to the whole group that was wo:t>kina :l.n the field.
Q There certainly came a time when tl!.e :!,.nisned
product was presented to ·the meeting, is tha.t r:lgh·~?
A That is right.
Q Do you recall who it ·was who presented :1.-~, Docto:.-?
A I believe Dr. DuBridge presented it.
Q Referring to that draft as it was prepared b;y: llr.
• DuBridge, do you remember if that said 1qJthing am1t thermo·-
naclear weapo11.s?
a: They may have been mentioned, but the;r were not pru~ -~
of our proposal for close support, for army support.
Q Would you explain that a bit tD me, Doctor? Why
weren't they?
A In .the first place, at that time the :~easibil:!.ty of
hydrogen wepons bad not yet been established, aud we did not
feel that this could be part of our proposal. Ilnvelopment work
•
was still going on and the investigation <f the technical
feasibility of a hydrogen bomb was still going cm.
<' This was in ll!ay 1952?
A No, this was in November 1950, I believe, Was it not?
Q We were both wrong. It was Kovellber 1951.
1111' 32835 Docld:364792 Page 72

A November 195ll, that is correct. That is the time
that we discussed the version ths.t we took to Europe with us.
-----------"""--:we* ·-·-· . . ·. ....

•
That was November 18, 1951, I believe. .
~;.;:;..::~.:. ::-.~~....:.!-: ~·...:t.o.-.. ..·.-·
~-
Q Whan was tb.e f.easi"l>ili ty of hydrogen weapons
established?
A I have no l{nowledge that it bas been establisllc~J yet.

.:- ;
' ..
Q You mean you still don't know thatthey will work?
,,i
' A I do not kno, no. I know about subs•etqi1en·t
I
developments on certain thermonuclear devices. ".,,
~I
'I
Q Wasn't there a test of a hydrogen weapon? Haven't
there been tests of hydrogen weapons1
go~ per~•PS
\I
• a sub:e::i::r t::c::s:::s::=ble,
MR. GRAY:
THE WITNESS:
bu mean from the point
That is right.
but
a~ , .. iew of security?
not
,l,,.f
l
. Ji"
Do you want to pursue this?
"
Perhaps I might finish up otl!er matters !
•.
. .... . ~ ...... ' - ,. '
. . . _'·•-....,... -~· ,___.--/I
Q Doctor, do you remember in the spring of 1952,
spe,cifically in May, v.hen ir:here was discussion about so-called
• Ivy Shot?
Q
I reMember 'the Ivy Shot, yes.
The Ivy Shot was supposed to be a test of some
thermonuclear device.
HW 3283~ Docld:364792 Page 73

2053
A That :ts right.
Q Did you take any position on whether or not that
• should be postponed or cancelled.?
A I thought it was an ilnrpor t~.n t time t•> see if some
agreeDBnt could be reached for avoiding futw=e tests, or if
there was some way of reaching a.g,Teernents on control of
weapons of that character. I thought a study :>h.oul<l l?e made,
and consideration should be :itven to the possi"i>:l.lit!' of malcing
use of this important event to accompll.ish this purpose.
<' Was it your position that the Ivy ter;t --
MR. !MRKS: Mr. Robb, what was the date of the Ivy
• test?
Doctor?
MR. ROBB! It was in the fall of 191:\'l, was.n' t it,
THE WITNESS: That is my belief and :recollection.·
MR. Rma: We are talking now about ·the spri11g of
1952.
BY Wl. RCBB:
Q Was it your position j,n the spring of 1952 that i:he
Ivy test . should not take place?
•
A It wa.s my position that some effort :;hould be devoted
that summer to studying the ques1:ion of whether v.>e could take
advantage of this possibility of trying to reach so1ie sort of
agreement on tile limitation of the use of thermonuclear weapoDE.
<' Agreement with whom?

A With tl!.e Rtissians.
Did you oppose the Ivy test in the absf1nC•E) of sL•ch
•
an effort to make an ag:t>eement?'
A I did not oppose :l.t i;a any official capacity. I
thought it was very unfortunate.
Q Were you opposed to the development of tha so-cP.lled
B bomb?
A Yes.
O Had you finished"?
A I have finished. I think I have said r.11 l can say
unless we go into classified ma.l:.arial.
Q Were you opposed to tlile development of the H bomb
• as of the spring of ll952?·
A You refer to a hydrogen blnb, is that correct?
Q Yes, sir.
A I thought ~.t would be ·very lmfoirtun:?.te to devote
an effort to that tl!lat would be so large that it would
interfere with the weapons that we have disc11~se1i earli.er,
namely, the weapons that the Vista study indicatod were needed
for ground support and for resisting e.ggress!on ;In Western
Europe .
• Q Doctc•r, I don• t want to be unfair with you, but
JI: to conclude from your answer that you were C>pp1)sed to tile
development·of tbe Ji bomb?

&Ill
A I was not opposed to a study of the tec:hnical
lllf 32835 Docid:36•792 Page 75

2060
feasibility of an H bomb. That was the question that was
being considered at that time, I believe.
• Q
A
In May 1952?
I think. so .
directive, that a study of the

I bel ie,•o this was the !?resident's
~;echnical feasibility should be
made. This ! was in favor of.
Q Doctor,wben was the President'sdirective?
A I believe there were two directives, one on tW 30th
of January, and the second, an official newspaper announcement,
on the 31st of January, 1950.

( That was two years bei?1>re May 1952.
• A
Chairman.
That is right.
MR. ROBB: I think that is all I care to as!t, Mr.
Mlt. GRAY: Dr. Lauritsen, do you feel as of today

a BBmber of the Communist Party, that is, a man who is currently
a member of the Communist Part.)r, is automatically a secu:rity
·risk?
THE WITNESS: I thin!: so .
lllR. GRAY: You don't have any qestion in your mind
•
about that, do you?
THE WITNESS: No, not i!.f I can bel:liave what I have
been told about the Conanunist Pmty, and I do believe it.
MR. GRAY: In testifying earlier, l ttiin!t you said

you considered Dr. Frank Oppenheimer loyal in every respect,
1111 32835 Docid:364792 Page 76

2061
and with no reservations about his character or trustworthiness?
THE WITNESS: That is right.

Are you a1JE>.re that Dr. Ft"a.nk Oppenheimer
•
MR, GRAY:
has stated at an earl:ler periotl in his life b~ was a member

of the Communist Party?
THE WITNESS: Yes, air, I am aware o:t' that now.
MR. GRAY: But still you say you h.~~e no reservations

about his loynlty or character?
TBS WITNESS: No, I have not.
MR. GRAY: ?Tould you explain to the Board wb.y you
conclude that you would trust him with any secret, whieh I
believe is the effect or import of what you sny, today,
• although you believe that a member of. the Cornuunist Pnrty is
automatically a secirity risk?

THE WITNESS:
Would you expllain that?
I believe he has resigned from the
Communist Party, and he is no longer under tlw d.iscipline of

the Co111111Unist Party. I believe he was cleared for work on
war projects during the war and including nuci.ea'I:' weapons work.
MR. GRAY: This was not after it waf; known he was a
momber of the Communist Party?'
THE WITNESS: This I have no way of knowing. I do
• not know what turned up in his investigation •

MR, GRAY: would you feel that if it hnd been :mown
at the time that he was a member of the Commullist Party Ill
should have been cleared for war work?

2062
THE WX'INESS: If he haQ! not resigned previ.ously, I

would certainly not recommend his clearance. l:f he bad
• resigned previously because he no longer wanted to be a member

of the Communist Party because he had found out that the
Communist Party was not what it appeared to be, then I would
still be inclined to say that he would be reltble.
MR. GRAY: Today on classified projects for which
you have sOlll8 responsibilitxr, including a security restionsibili.ty,
if a man comes to the proj ec:t seelting employment, who is known
to you to have been a forme;~ member ofthe Communist Farty,
would ycu employ him simply on his statement tlb:it he no longer
• was a m-ber of the Comnuni:;;t Party?

THE WITNESS:
through official channels.

No, not without appropriate clearance
MR. GRAY: What ~ould your recommendation be?

THE WITNESS: 1~· he had resigned fro111 the Communist
Par.ty when he foll!nd out \!hat the purpose of the Communist

Party really was, and hni been a member only as long as Ile
bad been under misconce.;>tions about these things, then I would
not hold that against bim.
•
lllR. GRAY: You would accept as evidence of that his
own statement?
THE wr1 NEss: Not necessarily. I thilll; some people
you can teust, nxl others you can't trust. I think it depends
on what other attivities he bas been involved in and what he

2063
has been doing. In Frank's case, I 'lhink be demonstrated that
be wanted to work for this country. ,Other people perhaps
have not demonstrated that. I tllidt there :is a great deal of
• difference between being a Communist in 1936 and be:i.ng a

Communist in 1954·. I don• t think very many of us lmew, I
certainly did not know what the Communist Par~y was up to and
how it operated.
MR. -GRAY: Let 100 ask this queF ti011: . Would it be
' -
a rather accurate s~ry of at least parts of your testimony
to say that you :never really understood very much about the
Communist Party or its workings?

THE WITNESS: That I did not?
• MR. GRAY:
THE WITNESS:
MR. GRAY:
That is right.
At that time.
Because eacll of these people that Mr.
Robb asked you about, who I think were later identified as

having been in the Party or close to it, you testified that
this was solllthing you had no knowledge or· suspicion about.
MR. GRAY: Have you evar known anybody that you

thought was a Communist?
• THE WITNESS:
MR. GRAY:
Not personally, no.
So membership in the Communist Party is
something you re:ily have not concerned yourself with in any way?

MR. GRAY: Did you know az.. Fuchs?
2054
THE WITNESS: X knew him at Los Alamos.
llR. GRAY: You didn't :;uspect he was & Colillllunist?
• TIE WITNESS: No.

contac1Bwith him were limited to
tl)e same dining room occasionally.

I did not know him well,
our ·hlE.ng
My
lunch together in
Apart from that, I did not
know him.
MR. GRAY: But you had no more suspicion of him
than you did of the others whose na-s have been mentioned hel·e?
THE WITNESS: No.
MR. GRAY: If asked at the time would you have said
that he was loyal to the war effort?
• THE WITNESS: I would not have said it.
know him well enough 1D have an opinion.
with his work.

I did not
I had nothing to lb
MR. GRAY: If he worked very bad at Los Alamos and

contributed effectively, that is in a senlie a. demonstration
of his loyalty?
THE WITNESS: I would say it would tie one in his
favor, but perhaps not conclusive.
MR. GRAY: In the light of developi.ng facts.
THE WITNESS: That is I COllld not have testi-
•
r~ght.
fied against him if I bad been asked to bec11.use I d:id not

have the information.
MR. GRAY: You would not consider yourself an expert
on Collllllllnism in any sense of the word?
32835 Docld:364792 Page 80

2065
THE WITNESS: No.

lllR. GRAY: Have you any questions, Dr. Evans'?
•
DR. EVANS: . Yes. Doctor, you said you were born and
raised in Denmark.
THE WITNESS: That is correct.
DR. EVANS: Would you tell.us just where you were
educated?
THE WITNESS: I studied in a technical school called
Odense. I graduated from there in 1911. Then I studied at
the Royal Academy of Arts in Copenhagen subseq\lently .
•
DR. EVANS: Jou got a degree from there?
THE WITNESS: I· got a degree from this technical
• school, what probably here would be called st1•uctu1ral

engineering. I think that would be
I was at that time planning to be an architect.

the nearest approach to it.
DR. EVANS: '!bu are not a Communist?

THE WITNESS: I am not a Communist, no.
DR. EVANS: Have you ever been what is called a
fellow traveler?
THE WITNESS: No, sir.
DR. EVANS: Have you belonged to any of these
• subversive organizations that appear on the Attorney General's

list?
THE WITNEss: No, sir.
DR. EVANS: Doctor, do you believe tb.a.t a man can
llff 32835 Docid:364792 Page 81

2oas
be perfectly loyal to his country and still be a security risk?
THE WITNESS: X suppose so, yes.
• DR. EVANS:
discretion, you say?
THE WITNESS:
You have faith in Dr. Oppenheimer's
I do.
DR. EVANS: Have you ever been approached for
security information?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
DR. EVANS: Men have approached you?
THE WITNESS: FBI, yes.
MR. GRAY: I want to make sure the witness understands
• this question .
DR. EVANS:
THE IVITNESS:
I don' t mean the FBI.
I am sox•ry.
DR. EVANS: I mean somebody that might be a Soviet
agent •
•
THE WITNESS: No.
DR, EVANS: You ha.ve never been approached?
THE WITNESS: Not to my knowledge, !llO.
DR. EVANS: You are not always able, Doctor, to
•
tell these ·communists when you 1:1eet them, are you?
DR. EVANS: It IRJll.rently is not easy to recognize tbem.

Ti1E WITNESS: That is right.
DR. EVANS: It is particularly appnrent for a
32835 Docid:364792 Page 82

20l:i7
professor not to know whether people are Co11111111nists, is that
true?
•
THE WITNESS: I think it is true of anybody. I don't
think professors·. are any better a- any worse tlia.n any other
people.
DR. EVANS: I don't know, Doctor, stnce I have been on
this Board. That is all.
B4R • GRAY : Mr • lda1· ks •
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. lliARXS:
Q Dr. Lauritsen. looking back over ttm span of the
last 25 years, do you know Rober.t Oppenheimer or l!'r~.nk Oppen-
• b!imer better?
A Robert much better.
1 Would you explain tha~?
A We had more prof essil.onal things in uommon a.nd wei·e
if not at. the same age, at least more nearly the same age.
It was only reasonable both being members of the faculty that
I should know him better. Also, I bave known him a longer time
and a greater fraction of tie time.
Q You said you don't consider yourself an eA"Pe1·t on
• Communism.
·A
Q
No, I don't.
Do ycu consider yourself an elqB't 011 Dr. Oppenheimer's
trustworthiness?

lil'll63
A No, I don't know whatan expert on that is, or hew
you get to be expert on that. l only know what my own feel:i.ngs
• and belief are, and it is very deep •
Q There was a long list of names read to yot1.
them you said you didn't know.

Some of
A As fa'r as l know, as far as 1 remember.
Q Some of them you described, such acquaintance a.s you
had with them. Are there any people on that list that was
read to you by ll!r, Robb with respect to whom your knowledgG was
as ereat as that of Dr. Oppenheimer?
A No, I think not.
• Q Considering the fact, Dr. Lauritsen, that you
extensively engaged in military work of a top secret nature,
would you consider it a departure from discretion if you were
to visit with Dr. Morrison today'?
A No.
Q Would you consider it a departure from di3cretion
i f you visited with the Serbers?
A No.
Q Would you visit 111i th them?
•
A I would like to very much •
Q Would you say the same of Dr. Morrison?

A l know him very little. I know the Serbers fairly
well. I have no knowledge that they are Communists.
MR. GRAY: I don't Itn01r whether you had oompleted

206!)
your questioning.
.
MR. MARKS: I thiiak B>.
•
RECROBS EXAMINATION
BY MR. R<EB:
Q Row about Pet<9rs? Would yo1J visit hi:m?
A I don't know 1lim personally, but I feal that it would
be vel-y W1•ong for the Physical Society to throw him out of the
ii" . . '
Society. It is not a political society.
Q No, but from what you have hear.d abo\'lt Pet~rs, would
you;_feel that you were be<i.ng discreet to associate with him?
A I really don't knav eno11gh abo11t him to be sure
about that •
• Q
A
You couldn't be sure either way'?
I don' ·t have m ough information.
C One question that l! ove:~looked, Mr. Chairman. Do
you recall, Doctor, anything :ln the Vista Repor.t, either in
the draft as it was read in fi.nal f0rm at Pasaduna or later,
about an announcement by the tfn:i.ted States that no strategic
atomic attack would be made against Russia unlcrns such an
attack were first started by Russia, either api.nst tile Zone
of J.nterior or against our European Allies, or e;ometh:hig of
• L'-·j~~-!ia:.···:.:·t~s..::or:..:t,;.?...,,__...-=--'"="='-"""-~"'"·_"",."".-~,""---'--~~-~·-__ ~-..-.--~~~-......_.__
... ·: ..
.....,
A I do not remember the exact wording, il•ut, li_ know
· that my feeling was that the important thing wa$ to strim
imm·ediately against their tactical airfields and the immediate
. '· . ~ .- ' . '>:::---
JlV'32835.-." Docld:36'792 Page 85

20'!0
military targets that could attack our field forces. Th:ls
had to be done within a matter of hours after hostilities,
• while the long :l"ange strategic operations could at best be
da:ys, and that the immediacy of the attack was not
important a.s in the ca:;e of the grolllllld forces.

~~~~-'-',~·-·"'; __ ........ ~-~·-..:.:.-~-= ·-·'
-.~~~"""""-
·c:r Was 'there anything about any announcement to tllll t
effect being made by t!be United States? Was there any
recommendation?
A Was a recommendation :l.n the Vista Re:port'?
c I am asking :you to search your recollection :lor it.
A I ·think it is possible that we pointed out faa t WG
• felt that the tactical support sllould be available if such a
statement was ma.de, tbat we wou1.d not use the :strategi.c
capability except in retaliation.
Q Was that your view?
A Yes.
Q Was it Dr. O;?penheimer's?
A I believe so.
O Did your views and Jh•. Oppenheimer's pretty ge:reall3•
coincide during this p.3riod?
•
A I think so •
Q Was that true in May o:! 1952, also?
A In J.t\y of 1952?
Q When you were talking al:mt the Ivy test.
A I think so, yes.
HW 3283~ Docid:36,792 Page 86

2071 .
Q Did you discuss that vii th him?
A Yes.
•
MR. RCBB: I think that is all .
mt. GRAY: I have just one other question, D:;:o.
Lauritsen. l'/ould :l.t b<? fair fer me to assU!l'le ti.mt your viow
with respect to a Comm~nist, former Communist, and so forth,
is that you really prefer not to have to make these

determinations, and you would rely on the secu:;ri t:v people
for it?
THE-WITNESS: Yes.
MR. GRAY: In fairness, isn't that your statement,
that you would just prefer not 'fD have to go into it?
• THE WITNESS:
MR. GRAY:
That is right.
I don't want to put my statement i11 your
mouth.
THE WITNESS: Mo, I agree this is the point -of view.
We have machinery for handling these cases, and 1 think it
would be quite wrong for ma to rmke tll\e decisions.
BV MR, MARKS:
Q Dr.Lauritsen, accepting the view that you hzve just
• described, that we lilave r.inchine1•y fer decid.ing the kind of
issues that the Chairman has mentioned about the Coir,munists,
I would like to have you dist:l.uguish between the operation
of that machinery :In the large, the operation of that machinery

2072
in general, and the opinion that you hold \V-l th respect to JOr.
Oppenheimer, and I would like to ask you whether :rou have
• any hesitation :i.n making the judgment on this niat·ter with
respect to Dr. Oppenheimer ·-- personal judgment: -·· ti!lat is, a
personal judgment with respect to his character, loya.li:y,
discretion.
A Would you say what the question is?
Q My question is, bearing in mi.nd youx vic~w that it
is appropriate for the machinery of governmHii: 1D determine
questions of who is and who is not a Communist, who is and who
is not a security risk, I \Vould like now to ask you whether :u1
• view of that opinion you have any hesitation in oxp1•a:ssing
what your own convictions are about Dr. Oppenheiemr?
A I think I havQ already done so. I ta:lt~ it W•~ are
in the middle of the open.tl1.on of this machinel·y, anti. :l have
made statements thatl \Wluld have no hesitatim t•» recommend
complete clearance ..
Q I was not asking you tlnat.
A I thought that is what you asked.
Q I think you answered the question.
•
MR. GRAY: I think his earlier testimony pretty
adequately answered that. I! don't want to keep hi:111 from
saying it again, but I think it is perfectly clear.
MR. MARKS: No, I j~1st wanted to be sure that there
was a distinction. JurJt one more question.
llW 3283~ Docid:3fi•792 Page 88

2073
BY MR. MARKS:
, The testimony that has already been given by others
• here suggests to me that it is not inappropriate for me to
ask the question that I am about to ask. I:ll', however, the
answer to it in any way involves classified :h1formtio11, you
thinking between what is described as an H bomb and what is
describad as thermonuclear
.
weapons
. and devices?
ll---=~-·.~ . ·•' .
A I think it is clear from the way I an.swered these
questions that there is, bll!t the explanation of it, I think,
• is classified with a very high degree of classification.
involves technical details that could only be considered of a
high degree of classification. .. . . --· ·- ...

Xt
Q Let me ask another question that I think will not
involve or that may not involve any classified information:
Is it fair to conclude from what you have ~i us t said

J
,
'
!'
that you might have held one kind of a view with respect to
•
'
thermonucleai· devices and tlb.ermonuclear weapons and a quite /
different v:l.ew with respect to a hydrogen bomb'?

. i
--
----
.--~~
•
A May I state it a little differefltly? It is a little
bard to answer directly.
Q Answer it as best you can, if you can without
getting into classified material.
A Tlie best I can say is that fl"om what I know about

the discussiocs tltt lla.ve «ppe:i.red in the m~nupapers, ·t;!Jie
discussion has been on the basis of whether. l'W are for oir
•
against a crash prog&'am on hydrogen bombs. This ·~xpTess ion
was not used &s far as I know in any direci;:i.vEl by the
President . The Pres:i.dlent 's diract:l:!l'e did not merit:i.<)n Cl."amh
program. It did not mention hydrogen bomb. ! believe it
mentioned the order of im•astiga ti on of the technicml :l'easibi:ti ty

,.--==--=>'-"'""--"'>-~'-,''.,_;,,_- -·..•..-. .- ~... .::... ....~·- ~~~-}__,_
..
of *hermonuclear weapons. J 'i.'h:i.s , l! think, :ls very differ er1t - ··

.. -·-·.
from a crash program on a hydrogen bomb. Sucti a crash
program I believe would interfere seriously vii th other tilings
that we needed very badly if we wer<? to cai·ry out the misi>ion
that was assigned to Visu.. If our total effort in th1s fir.'1.d
• {
\
\
went into a crash program ori hydrogen bombs, s:ta'<"ting in 1950,
I believe it would seriously interfere with i:l\ings that. we
needed urgently.
Does that answer the question? Jr v1a.s ;lever opposed
to carrying out what l! uooe:r·stood to be the Presiclent'e•
directive but it has been discussed in very clt:l.fferent terms,
it seeilllB to me •
im, llJARKS: I thiru< that is all.
MR. ROBB: That is: alL
• lliR. GRAY:
THE WITNESS:
Thank you very much, Dr. Laur:•.tsen.
Tll\ank you.
(Witness excused.)

2075
MR. GRAY: Who is your next witness?

MR. GARRISON: I told Mr. Buckley that I arrangad
• for him to testify at 2 o'clock •
MR. GRAY:
MR. GARRISON:
Do you Jllave anybody here now?
Wo bave Dr. Zacharias here.

MR. GRAY: Is he likely to be a long witne·ss?
MR. MARKS: l hope not.
MR. GRAY: Could we get started with Dr. Zacharias?
MR. GARRJ[Sai: The problem you will i~ecall about Ml'.
Buckley
MR. GRAY: Yes, I would say in. this case because
• of Mr. Buckley's health and circumstances of h:ls beil!lg he1•a,

•
if we don't fin:lsh Vii tit Dr. Zacharias, we will inter•·up1: his
testimony. But ][ would like to get ahead with it if we can
unless you object to that.

MR. ROBB: No, indeed.
MR. GUAY: Dr. Z<J,Ci:iarias, do you wish to testify
under oath? You are not re>quired to do so. llroweve1•, X think
I should point out to you that every witness who has appeared
to this point has chosen to do so.
•
DR.ZACHARIAS: Yes, I do .
MR. GRAY: Would you be good enough to stand and

raise your right hancil. What. is your fUll name?
DR. ZACHARIAS: Jerrold R. Zacharias.
MR. GRAY: Jerrold R. Zacharias, do you swear that
1111 3283~ Docid:364792 Page 91

the testimony you a.r<l! to g:ive ·i!:h<?- Bea.rd shall he th;; tx·utll,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help yw God?
•
DR. ZACIIARIAS: I do •
Whereupon,
JERROLD R. ZACHARIAS
was called as a 'l'titness, anc!I having been first duly sw·orn,
was examined and testified as follows:
MR. GRAY: IYill ycu be seated, pleas~, s5.r?
Et is my duty tc• remind you of the existerfll! of
the pe1•jur~r statutes, and the fa.ct tha. t there 21re pt,no.l ties
with respect to violation of those stati1tes. Do ! need to
review those with you, Docto·r?
• '!.'HE WITNESS:
MR. GRAY:
Ne., sir •
I Sll<i•Uld li!w to requE>St that Hi :i:n 1;he
course al. your testimony it becomes necessary for you to
refer to or cUsclose restricted data, you notify me in advanCE•
so that we may take certain appropriate steps in the interest
of security.
Finally, I should say to you, as I say on behalf. of
tile Board to all wil. tnesses, tha. t we c:onsidE•r this p;i•oceed:~ng
a confidential matter between the Atomic Energy Coium:is sion
• and its offieials on the c•ne hand, and Dr .• Oppenhe:hwr, his
reprementatives and witmu;:ses 011 the other. Tha· Conm.issic>n
ma.king no releases with r.<t,spect to thes.E• p?·oceedings, and we

iF·
express the hope that the witnesses will take the s~ime viev1.
l1W 3283~ Docid:364792 Page 92

~! (}1'7
MR. MARKS: May we pause just a minute. ll nm not
sure you expressed the hope to In'. Lauritsen.
• MR. GRAY:
MR. MARKS:
MR. GP.AY:
Yes,
No, I
x dio .
I am gui te sure he
lll'!l
undei~stands
not sure tllat I did.

that.
MR. lllARKS: I th:lnk he undc:rst andro :!l.n any •'.la>.se l:n.,t
I just wanted to be sure.
ll!R. GRAY: Will you proceed.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. HAUS:
Q What is your pL•esent position?
• A I am professor oj: physics at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, arid director of the laboratory of
nuclear science there.
Q Khat connections l:w.ve you had with milita:;:oy woll'k .
commencing with World War J:I. Stat! th:li.s very briefly, if you
will.
A I worked during IVorld !Va.!" II primarily in 1ile
radiation laboratory at JU1'. For a short period duriln;; th.-.t
time at the Bell TelephonE• Radar Laboratory at Whippany, New
•
Jersey. I spent about four months at the end of the war, just
overlapping VJ day, at L<>r3 Alraaos. Then I spent a fair amount
of tillllJ 011 a. number of study projects for the military and
for things associated with the military.
Q Wblt are those projects?
llV 32835 Docld:364792 Page 93

A. The first onu uam a stl.ldy of nuclea.:r po'l'ror.sd flight
sponsored by the Atomic Energy Commission, a p••ojeci: headoo by
•
Walter Whitman, and known as Project Lexington. I think it
was probably the first of "tho things tlul. t we call Sl1'1lm:~r
studies.
The second!. one w:1.s Project nartwe:!.l, \11icll :r Jirecte:d,

~~__:. ~-
. ..:.--: :.···-·· ·-~-...--- ... - __ .....__ -~ - ~:..~ - ·-. , ·-~---
a study of ovarseas tre.nspor"I:, specifically 0.:1.rectet\ ~;oward the
" antisubmarine problem.

)
\
Then Project Cfilarlos, which wns a study ai · i•IIT, headed
by F. w. Loomis. I wa~: the r.sr.11ocia.te d:i.recto..- of that study.
,.·'
:·.~~.:::~ ::::.:::::-:~ ::::~::·:·~~:~:. )
• \ ·. mostly about defense of co11t::nental North A1ner:l.ca..
.-:.. - .
- -·..
Then out of that si;ulf:y there grew a labora«:ory at

-
-0'/
.~.
~~le~-~th~ ~~~~o:~ ~bor~·~o~y.F ~ar~~ a~~~:~ef~n:;=--)"·.·--

(
\
laboratory in Lincoln, Massachusetts .. It .ts u1 Lincoln,
Lexington and Bedford, lllase;achusetts.

. --- - '.-
. •.• ..--- • ·. - .
.
l wns for a tihr.a associa. te dllr actor t>f the L:i,r:coln
Laboratory lln its first :vea.r or so.
Q When was that?
A That la.J::>-orato1·y S'.ta.rted iii ~.bout June, July er so
•• of 1951. I was involved fcrr a short time -- rAot •1er3• long
in ProjGct Vista, which I am sure has entered into th1:1se
discussions before. Then as a lll9mber of Project Lincoln, l(
was in charge of a study on defense of the North Amer:ican
lllif 32835 Docld:364792 Page 94

2079
continent, a pl'oject that had no name. We were try:lna no·~ to
let it be a project, but it got to be known as the suilllller study
>. of Project Lincoln.
that is about it.

That Tills i.n the summer of 1952. l think
Q In connectio:n w:l.th th:is la.st project that you have
described, did you perso=lly 111nl:c ~ny special contPibuticn
to it that yo1.1 can des•:::ril:le without getting in to wssified
material?
A I was diL·•~r.to;r o:I' the. p1·oject ,. and therefoire im•oJ.verl ·
in almoi;t ail phases o1~ it. I tli:l.nlt w:i. thout gatt:l.ng into
rather :lnvolvod! \:0(!-imical disow;s:lon v1hicb might tnr11 out to
• be cl::i:ssif:C.ed, that :',s, a f.ll"ank discussion of which might
go off into classifiod chaur.e1.s, l
not to be i;oo speo:lfic a.!:>01Jt pe:rsonal contributions.

think it would b:o best
:r VJou ld ha er 1ati tc- :l f necessary.
Q !tow long lw.ve you kuo-.m Dr.. Oppenhei1>ter?
A As l rem<:imToex· it, l m;it him when he was a student
abroad. It was in t~1a summer of 1926 or 1925. It was tbe
summer of J!&2G at a moo ting i.n t'ne University o:< · Leyflon in
Bolland, and talke~ t~ hiru a bit.
•
Q What i3 :;iom: aSStl)(Jiation with him s:i.nce tha.t tin!.e?
A Since that t:i.lll3 J[ would say it has been very scan·ty
up until my workinll" at l.o:a Al:J.mos. However, J[ did meet him
again in 1940 -- tbe s:~mmie·r o:f HMO -- Norman Ramsey and X
met him at Seattle, azJd togother we drove south to San
lllf 3283~ DocXd:3fi4792 Page g~

2080
Francisco and Dr. Oppenheimer joined us.
Q Putting to one side such casual associations, what is
•
tbe period during which you have had close associations with
him?
A The close association, I would s~y, substantially

started at Los Alamos in July of 1945.
Q Since that time have you bad frequent occasion to
work with him?
A Yes, and mos~ly on things that involve the military.
To some extent on general policies, regarding the support d.
science.
Q Regarding the support of science where?
• A Support of scien~e in this country generally.

call it financial support of science and the trends that itwsics
Let us
takes.
Q Just to be sure I understand you, you are speaking
now, I take it, about two different aspects of your postwar
association with Dr. Oppenheimer?
A Yes.
Q One is military.
A One is you might say military in matters of national
• policy and that sort of thing, and tbe other has to do with
support of -- let us be specific -- of nuclear physics.

being fairly expensive, there has been a fair amount of
It
di:scussion about how auch an expensive thine can be properly
llW 3283~ Docid:36A792 Page 96

2081
supported,and the directions on which it oucht to go. On
those subjects we have bad ~onsiderable discussion.
• Q
A
Did you have much contact with Dr. Oppenheimer
in connection with Vista?
Not really. I saw him there. I was at that project
only about two or three weeks. Be was tllere at tho time
that we were working on substantially different things, and

although I saw him there, I. wasn't very close to the particula.r
thing he was v1orking on.
Q How about Project Lino0ln?
A On Project Lincoln, I think the most important thing
• to Mntion would be the study during the sullllll8r of 1952 .

Could I go into a little detail on that?
Q Yes, bearing in mind the Chairman's saution about
classified information.
A I think 1IB story of that summer study is
probably worth putting into the record, and I will try to di
it as quickly as I can, because it bas been to· a .certain

·~:::;;;::,...·.:.~~__,_:;..::;:::-:--_"-.
-...
extent a moderl.tely
~---'·--=--. ·- ~·
contr.over~~al th~ng~l,Continental
-- -
-~·- · ..
bas been \l
f' to a certain extent controversial. Present national policy
\ \
•
i on continental defense is especially gratifying to those of
[
I: us who did work on that study because natical policy has turned
I
I·
'
i enough in the direction of making continental defense so
\
,.\ think it is an important thing to get on the tabl:_::•_:_·_ _,__~-~
·--. ···--- .
'- - Q Let - interrupt you there to ask you if you ca.n say,
1111 32835 Docld:36~792 Page 97

2082
was there any policy with resi»ct to continental defense before
the sumner study of which you are·speaking?
•
A Surely. The Air Force bad then and has considerable
interest in continental defense, and was going alone certain
technical lines, and with the buildup of a certain amount of
counter force for the protection of the continent. In fact,
the ·Lincoln Laboratory itself, which was by then a year and a
half to two years old, is a laboratory that is under contract
to the Air Force. It is a joint ArlllJ', Navy, Air Force
laboratory, but the Air Force holda the contract and is the major
contributor.
Q I interrupted you when you were about to tell the
• story of wh*t happened as a result of the summer study.

A The lincoln laboratory set up to work on technoligical
and technical aspects of continental defense. In fact, air
defense of any sort. Just prior to the summer of 1952, Dr.
Lauritsen and I had a long discussion about the trend in

~083
that we should talk this over with certain others whom we knew
very well. First of all, Dr. Bill, who was then the director
• and is now the director of Lincoln Laboratory.

we would talk it over with Dr. Oppenhei- and Dr. Rabi.
Q Why d:ld you talk to Dr. Oppenheimer?
We decided
A In my experience it is alwaJS profitable to talk to

Dr. Oppenheimer. Bis head is so clear on qestions of this
sort that when you flounder for months to try to formulate
your ideas, you get to him and he can listen and help state
clearly what you and he and others have decided is the germ
of what you are thinking. This is true in all of my
• contacts with Dr. Oppenheimer on this kind of question •

We decided, then, that it would be a good idea to
start such a study, that Dr. Oppenbeimer, Dr. Rabi, and Dr.
Lauritsen agree to work on this study in part. Tbe reason is
that it 1s very difficult to recruit mm of stature, men of

ability into any kind of study. They are doing what they
think is adequate and they have some sense of urgency but
they also have the feeling, why don't we let somebody else do
the work.
•
Dr. Bill, who is th.e director of the Lincoln
Ji.ab, and I felt that if Dr. Oppenheimer, Dr. Rabiand Dr.
Lauritsen agreed to work on this in part, that it would be
easier for us to recruit a number of very brilliant people and
same of the lllOl'e experienced people to do the job. Indeed,
llV 32835 Docid:364792 Page 99

2084
.that tllrned out to be true. So tbat directly within the
Lincoln laboratory and sponsored by tbe Air l'clrce, as I say,
•
we set up a study •
We ca- out with three reconaendations, one of 'lllhich
I would like to say something about, and the other tYfo I will
just mention and not go into more deeply because of security
/,.. classification.
- ' -. ;
~
,;/ _,_._,, .......
___ ,,.,_ .:·.. . ·- -··
On the first, which was clearest in our minds,
\ \
and which has been enough in the newspapers so that I can say
!
it, - formulated the technical side of a warning system against ,;
I
aircraft that might be launched from Russia toward the United l
?
States. We formulated the technical details and laid plans l

• for a warning system that would be subetantially across the
top of the world from Hawaii around through tJle north, back
J
down across to England, and another part down to the Azores.

There were nany people in all branches of the military
and civilian life who felt tbat this was an impractical thing
to do, that mch a warninir system would be too expensive,

t.
too monotonous; it would take too many people ml_ too many '
dollars. It is my feeling that the najor role of science
p
in technology is to cut the dollars an d men out of the I
• military projects. We cut this by devising new methods which

have indeed over the past year and a half been proven
technically. We have devised new 11ethods whereby it is econom-
'',.
t'
'r
'
i·
i1:ally sound and quite feasible to bave .such an early
warning. __ )
llW 3283~ Docld:364792 Page lDD

l i
2085
s:ystem. We foriaulated tentative plans for carrying the air
battle out be:yond the continental confines of the United
•
t
States. We formulated plans to tr:y to earl')' an:y possible a:ir bat- f
tle out away from the cities. i
I
Q You mean to keep it from cettinc to the cities? f'

,.
I
A To keep it from getting to the cities, but also t>
keep the battle from going over cities. Air Defense Command !
'
is in tbe United States. We felt tbat it was ver:y important I
!
I
to learn how to fight an air battle out awaJ: from the country
in order to pull its sting,
..In <Ol"der to reduce it, and I
possibly to turn it back altogether.
',.
''
The last part af that stud:y was devoted to posaible
intercontinental ballist:i.c missiles, and on these last two
things, the remote air battle and missiles, I would like to

discuss these thincs only under :military secrecy.
atomic energ:y secrecy J think would not be importantly
~---<"invo-lved-,- Cll:though to a certain extent there, too.
The
J
Q Let us not go into those matters, Dr. Zacharias.
You spoke of resistance to these ideas in som quarters ~-
the military and civilian circles. Bas this resistance
•
persisted?
A X am not sure that I said there was resistance.

However, I am sure in the newspapers it is clear tbat
continental defense is a subject that has a lot of emotion
·pM·?":i ·=··7~·-·, - - · · - . - ~·---~-·..L,.r ~ ..... ~~·.:,_;···· ~ .. ''=°• -.. '';:'.'-•;·
0
-, ';.
in :lt.~t me sa:y in direct answer to )'~-question that the
3283~ Docid: 364792 Page 1oi · · .,

2086
\ ',,,
''
I national policy apropoe of continental defense is quite in :~
,,
' keep:l.ng with the reco-ndations that -re made by that study,/
.......... :t·-- -,
.- .,~ -- . ,,.-""
t
•
Before the study,, tbey were notj I don't want to bring
. ·.. ~·, . ::. .-.. .: -" '~- ' .- ... ,. .. . . "':· --c _,,
in the confusion of post hoc ergo propter hoc, but it is
true just before the t1- of the study and before the
discussions that folloWed it, there was not a strong policy,
and there now is a strong policy.
In other words, I don't want the su-r to be
credited with change of national policy no matter wbil.t I
happen to think when I am by myself.
Q Did you conceive the recommendations of this summer
study that 'you have referred to a11 being inco-istent or to
• be in conflict wi1b any national policy with respect to what

is described as strategic air policy.
A The only conflict is of a funny sort. Let me
begin it this way. Ce~tainlypart of any defensive 11ystem in
this country is what we call our offensive plan. One doesn't
think of protecting the continent by conventional defensive ·
-ans. That is, destruction all. enemy bases just as important

and every bit as important as local defense. It was the feeling
of a number of us who worked on this Bl mmer study that the
• amount of money and the amount of effort that the government
would have to put into overall defense was larger or is

lu·ger than was being put in then. Many people interpreted
our strong reco-ndations for defenae as an unfortunate
RV 3283~ Docid:364792 Page 102

2087
::-:
method of cutting into appropriationa for ltrategic A:ir

Command. This was not the case in our recOlllll8ndations and we
• believed then and I still believe tbat tbe money is going to

have to come from other sources, and not from cuts from the
military except in the -tter of pruning certain military
things that a.re not terribly fruitful.
ObjectioDB to try to build up continental defense
from the point of view of people who a.re trying to 'build up

offensive power alone, simply that if you work with a limited
number of dollars and a limited amount of effort, naturally if
you build one thing up, you would have to build the other
• down. Whereas, I am firmly of tile opinion that we a.re going to

build the whole thing up, and our economy will baVe to stani
it, and I am assured that it will. Does .tmt answer your

question.
Q You mean that you bad both strategic air and also
continental defense?
A Yes, sir, and other military things, too, as events
of the present show.
Q In this work that you have been describing,
•
. UR. GRAY: Are you still on the continental defense,
or are you about to leave?
MR. l\fARJCS: I was about to get to a final couple of
11uestions.
MR. GRAY: P.lease proceed if you are ;tbat close to

2oas
finishing. My question was related to whether - should stop
now for lunch.
•
MR. MARKS: I think I cculd finish in just a few
minutes.
rm. GRAY: Let us so ahead.
BY MR, MARKS:
Q Tbe work which you described in which Dr. Oppenheimer
participated on continental defense and other military and

scientific affairs, wbo did you conceive to be the enemy that
we needed to be worried about?
A There is no question in anybody's mind, and there

was no question in the mind of 1JDyone who participated or was
• closely associated with any of these discussions, Soviet Union,

and the ward "enemy",ar "Russia" and the ward "enemy" are
sort of interchanged freely. It is that deeply imbedde4 in
everybody'di thinking, including that of Dr. Oppenheimer.
Q What was your general purpose in devoting yourself
to this work?
A That is a simple question. This is the only country
we have, and these are tough times, and we want to help it.
Q As a result of your association with Dr. Oppenheimer
• have you formed an opinion or conviction as to his character

and his loyalty to the United States?
A I am completely convinced of bis loyalty to the
United States. Can I add a little way of saying it?
2089
g When you are gathered in a aroup of men who are

discussing the details on how to combat the Russians, how to
• contain the Russians, how to keep them from overrunning the

rest of the world, and so on, the loyalties come out very,
very clearly. There just is not any question in my mind that
Dr. Oppenheimer's loyalty is for this country and in no way
'•
or shape by anything other than hos'tility toward the USSR.
Q What about his character?

A His character? Ethical, moral is first rate.
Q Do you have any views as to his capacity to exer-
cise discretion in dealing with classified and restricted
• data and military secrets?

A In my opinion, he is always discreet anci careful
and has regarded the handling of secret documents and secret
ideas and so on with discretion and understanding. You might
think it is not the easiest thing in the world to carry around

a head full.of secrets and go about in public, too, and talk
about burning questions of.the day. It is difficult. I be-
lieve that Dr. Oppenheimer bas showed in every instance to
my knowledge that he can do this kind of thing.
•
MR. MARKS: That is all •
MR. ROBB: I can finish in two minutes, I think.
MR. GRAY: If we can, let us go ahead.

CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. RCllB:
llW 3283~ Docld:36•792 Paqe 10~

2090
Q Doctor, are JOU in the group that ia called ZORC'f
A Yes, except let - say that this na- was never
•
heard of bJ the -mbers of that group, bJ any one of those
four until it appeared in the national magazine.
Q I waa going to ask JOU if you could tell us what
you know about the origin of that no-nclature.
A I have no knowledge of the origin of that nomen-
clature. I do know one friend of mine went around to a
meeting of the Physical SocietJ, and hunted for people who
had heard of it. Found one and I would rather not mention
the name because it haa nothing to do with this thing. Be
may have heard it or it nay have been the invention of the
• man who wrote the article.

Q I think for our purpose, the na- is not popular.
Was there a croup consisting of Jouraelf, Dr. Oppenheimer,
Dr. Rabi and Dr. Lauritsen?
A No, no more than there would be a group of any four
people who respect each otller despite the fact that they hold
slightly different W&J• of looking at thinp -- a co111111Unity

of interests and a slight diaparitJ of approach. These four
people, I thilnk, are very different •
• Q
summer study?
A
Wei•• you four people the nucleus of that LINCOLN
No, sir. The four were not. I would say the nu-
cle•m, as I tried to clarify before, were Dr. Bill and myself.
lllil 3283~ Docld:36•792 Page 1D6

2091
That is, the Director of tbe Lincoln Laboratory. The fir&t
discussions were with Dr. Lauritsen. Dr. Oppenheimer and Dr.
• Rabi agreed that it would be a good thine to 10 ahead with it

and they were willin1 to lend their prestige to help pull in
some people into it, but this is far from being the nucleus
of the thing.
Q That is what I am trying to find out because it has
been rather fuzzy in my mind. Were you four people -- Dr.
Oppenheimer, Dr. Lauritsen, Dr. Rabi, and you -- peculiarly
active in that summer study? Were you the leaders of it?
A Let me say this. I ran it. I was the director
• of it. So, I was in it. There are no two ways about that •
Dr. Rabi, Dr. Oppenheimer and Dr. Lauritsen spent a small
fraction of their time. However, let me say this. We had
for the first week of that study a briefing for four days,
as I remember it, that was packed with as much meat as you
can get into any four days of technical briefing. I wanted a
summary of that technical briefing, and there were about 65
people there, all very fully informed, and the only man I could
turn to to give a summary, who could pull the thing together,
•
was Dr. Oppenheimer. He did a lll&sterful job. It was per-
fectly clear to everybody in that group how Oppenheimer felt
about all.of the issues, so that if you questioned any one
of those you could find a statement of what he believed.
Q. Was there any discussion, Dr. Zacbarias, about the
I llW 328H DocJ:d: 364 792 Page 107

2092
comparative morality of a so-called fortress concept, on the
one band, and a atraterric air force to wage qgressive war on
•
the other?
A Not in that summe~ study. I am afraid that wars
are evil. I do not think there is anyone in the room who
would take exception to that. It is not a very -aningful

state-nt. But the question of morality, one way or the
other, you do not have time for when you are trying to think
how you fight.
Q Was there any conclusion reached as to the relative
importance of a atrategic air force on the one hand and an

impregnable air defense on the other hand and, if so, what
• was it?
A I know of no one who really knows the inside of
'the military who believe• that it ia poasible to have either
an imprerrnable and all overwhelming and completely decisive

strategic air command, and I know of no one in the know who
thinks you can have a completely 1.mprerrnable defense. Wbat
the country needs is a little of both and one has to supple-
-nt the other. That was clearly stated in the conclusion of

this report •
• MR. RCSB:
UR. GRAY:
That is all I care to a~k.
I have a couple of questions.

to reverse my procedure and call on Dr. Evans.
I am going
D.R. EVANS: I have DO questions.

2093
HR. MCllGAR: I have no questions.

MR. GRAY: Dr. Zacharias, have your own associations
• been in question? Have you, for example, been identified with
any groups which the Attorney

various publications?
General bas listed in these
THE WITNESS: Ro, sir. Let me make one statement

about this, which I have written on all security questionnaires
so you will know.
In the late thirties, sometime, there grew up
something called the American League Against War and Facism.
I may have been a member. I would now, thinking back on it,
• believe that I should have been.

which became comunist-dolllinated.
any security questionnaire is this:
It is an organization
What I have had to say in
that if their rolls sa.y
I was, I was. If their rolls say I wasn't, I wasn't. !t was
not something that I had much time for or much traffic with.
This is the only thing of any sort remotely associated with
this kind of thing. lllind you, it was not a comunist-dominated

·organization when I was looking into it and thinking that it
mieht be a gOQd thing to back.
•
llR. GRAY: I think that is a very fair statement •
May I just ask this one further question. At one
ti-, did you beein to be conscious that association with the
Communist Party had elements Of dancer? Is that a clear ques-
tion?
llW 32835 Docid:364792 Page 109

2094
THE WITNESS: Yes, but like the question that is

not completely clear, the answer will take a couple of minutes.
•
Yes or no will not quite do •
MR. GRAY: I understand.
THE WITNESS: I went to college in New York, at
Columbia·, having come from the South. I learned about that,
that there was such a thing as Communism, as a college student
naturally. I lived in New York as a graduate student at

Columbia and as a member of the teaching staff of one of the
municipal colleges, Bunter College. Tbere was Communist argu-
-nt all around. I could never really understand any of the
Communist arguments and always fought bitterly, intellectually
• with all of the people who tried to band out the Co111111unist
line, so I would say that at no time since even my first dis-
covery of Coanunism did I ever think there was anything very
aensible about it.

I remember even what I thought as a freshman in
college. At no ti11e did I ever think there was anything
sensible about it, so there was never any sudden becoming
aware. However, the build-up of the COlllllUnist talk waa some-
thing that a number of us in l!lew York would always fight off
• and I can remember some bitter batJ;les with the pinks of the
1930's.
llR. GRAY! As of the time the fighting started in
Europe, would it have been clear to you tbat Communism might

0
RW 3283~ Docid:364792 Paqe 110

2095
bave involved some security proble•? I am not sure that is

a fair question. Wbat I am trying to pt at is whether you
• as a scientist were conscious at all of Communism either in

relationships or its threats or dangers, or whether it was
something that really did not cross your path at all.
THE WITNESS: I do not think one could have claimed
that he was awake and live in New York City in the thirties
and not know that there was Communism. I think a lot of people
did not regard it as the threat that it turned out to be.
Russia was small, it was experimental, it was backward, and
so on. I do not think any people who were backing it then
• kn- that it would capture half of the globe by 1954.

that answer your question?
MR. GRAY: Yes.
Does
I think perhaps I will put one

other to you.
ls there any question in your mind that employing a
Communist today on matters involving security would be a mis-
take, one who is now a member of the Communist Party?

THE WJ'fNESS: Let me get this straight.
JIR, GRAY: Let me put the question this way: ·1n your
•
mind, would Party membership be an automatic bar to a man who
was being considered for work of a classified nature?
TDE WJT!IESS: Certainly.
JIR. GRAY: Would this have been true in your mind.
in the war years of World War JJ?
11¥ 3283~ Docid:36~792 Page 111

2096
THE WITNESS: A then member of tbe Co11111111nist Party,

I would have thought tbe same, because I had such a low opin-
•
ion of their attitudes. In the case of some whom you might
call American Communists, there was a fanaticism that left
little doubt about whether you would want to have them on a
secret project. There are many who saw the light and when
they did -- the Russo-German Pact certainly cut a lot of tbose--
aad the less fanatical ones were probably hireable.
llR. GRAY: It follows, I .suppose, from what you
have already said that youteel that today a man who might have
been a member of tbe Co-nist Party can be in 1954 a perfectly
sate person security-wise. That is possible?
• THE WITNESS: Yes, I think so. I think also that

in givina a security clearance one should look at the depth
of his involvement and what sort of involvement there was.

MR. GRAY: Dr. Evans.
DR. EVANS: There were quite a number of Communists
around minter College at that time.
THE WITNESS: I do not know how many. I knew that
Bella Dodd, wbo was the head of tbe Teachers Union there was
likely to be a Communist. Remember, it is hard to know who
• is a Communist if you are not in it, but I was never surprised

when Bella Dodd confessed that sbe was a Communist.
DR~ .EVANS: You can meet a lot of people and talk to
them and know them in a certain way and not know they are
llV 3283~ Docid:36•792 Page 112

2097
comainists.
THE WITNESS: It depends OD how you define it. Some
•• people want to be very specific and try to say a dues-paying

member. You might not know whether a man was a due-payint:
member unless you happened to have s~ mechanism for knowing
it. A man is not likely to show you a red car and say, "Look,
I am a -mber of the Communist Party." But you can certainly
tell the flavor of a man's opinions by what he says. There
are many people that I would call Russo-phylic American
C0111111unists -- lovers of Rusaia. You could tell this by talk-
ing to them, I am sure.
• DR. EVANS: You have never been approached by anyone

trying to get claasified information from you, have you?
THE WITNESS: No, sir.
Dll. EVANS: I have no further questions.
REDIRECT EXAllINATION
BY i!R. MARKS:
Q Just three questions.

Dr. Zacharias, in response to a question of the
Chairman, as to whether you would consider someone who once
•
had been a communist or perhaps he said close to communistE,
but who no longer was, cons·idering his present hirability for
secret work, you said you would have to take account of the
extent of his involvement in the communist movement. Would
you also take· into account his· record since then?
3283~ Docid:364792 Page 113

2098
A Certainly. Whenever you sign a petition saying,

"I give this man clearance to work on such-and-such secret
•
project," tilts is a positive statement, and I think should be
hacked up with good, full knowledge and appreciation, pro and
con.
Q In response to a question by Mr. Robb abol1t conti-
nental defense and strategic offensive, I think you said that
what you -re advocating and what your group in the sullllller
study was advocating was a little of both.
A Maybe I should have said a lot of both.

Q Just one other· question. Do you have any connection
with the Science Advisory Committee of the Office of Defense
• Mobilization?
A Yes, sir. I am either a consultant or a member,
depending on whether the namas have been changed in the last
month or two. There are so many people who are members of
the Science Advisory Coll!lllittee and so many people called con-
sultants and it was decided two switch the titles of the
groups.
Q Do you attend those meetings regularly?
A Yes, sir •
• Q Could you make any comment on the value of Dr. Op-

penheimer's contributions in that organization.
A There are very few people who have Dr. Oppenheimer's
ability to synthesize the additions of others along with the
Hlf 32835 Docld:364792 Page 114

2099
ideas of himself. Be has that wonderful ability. Meetings

that have co- on without Dr. Oppenhei-r, in my opinion,
• have Buffered somewhat from this lack. llind you, there are
people on that Committee who have a real gift for summary,

but they are.not the equal of Robert Oppenhein8r. In particu-
lar, DuBridge and Killian, two college presidents. Maybe
that is part of the equipment of a college president, but
neither o- of them will focus the ideas quite as well as

Robert Oppenheimer.
DR. EVANS: I did not get what you said about the
equipment of college presidents.
• clear focus.
THE WITNESS: The ability to bring ideas into a
I am afraid it sounded --
DR. EVAim: You say that is the ability or is not
the ability?
THE WITNESS: It is the ability.
DR. GRAY: Be said it may he.
MR. MARKS: That is all.

MR. Ram: I have nothing further.
MR. GRAY: Thank you very much, Dr. zacharias.
•
(Witness excused.)
lllR. GRAY: We will recess until 2:15 p.m.
(Thereupon, at l: 10 p.m., a recess was taken to
reconvene at 2:15 p.m. this day.)
AJG
ICH FLS
llW 32835 Docld:364792 Page 115
2100
>apich lL AFTERNOON SESSION 2_.p.m.
DIR. GRAY: Mr. Buckl.ey, do you care to testify
• under oath? You are DOt required to do •o.

MR. BIX:KLBY:
YR. GRAY:
I am quite willing to do so.
All the earlier witnesses have done so.
If you do wish to, would you raise your right hand and stand
please? lllay I have your full name?
MR. BIX:KLEY.: Olliver E. Buckley.·· If you wish the
middle name, it is Ellsworth -- Olliver Ellsworth Buckley.
-
MR. GRAY: Olliver Ellsworth Buckley, do you swear
that the testimony you are to give the Board shall be the
,.
• truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help
you God?
MR. Btr:JCJ-EY : I do.
MR. GRAY: Will you be seated, please, sir.

I am required to remind you of the existence of tba
so-called perjury statutes. Afay I assume you are familiar
with those? lam prepared to review with you the penalties
for falsification or fabrication under oath?
MR. BIEKl·EY: I realize they are severe. I could
•
not state them •
MR. GRAY : I think that is adequate.
MR. BIX:Kl-EY: I should like to ask, sir, if the
cours~ of your testimoney should indicate to tou that is
necessary to advert to or disclose restricted data you let
Jlif 3283~ Docid:36•792 Page 116

2101
2 me know in advance.ao that we may take certain necessary and

appropriate steps.
•
Finally I should say to you what I have been saying
on behalf of the Board to each of the witnesses, and that

is, that we consider these proceedings a confidential matmr
between the AtOlllic Eueagy Commission and its officials on
one hand aDd Dr. Oppenebeinr, his representatives and wit-
nesses on the: other, and that the Collllllission is making on
releases with respect to these proceedings aDd we express
the hope that the witnesses will take the same view of the
situation.
Would you proceed, lllr. Garrison •
• Whereupon,
OLLIVER E. B'OOKl.EY
was called as a witness, and having been duly sworn, was

examined and testified as follows :
DmECT EXAMINATION
BY lllR. GARRISON :
Q Mr. Buckley, would you state your present position?

A I am retired. I waa formerly chairman of tbe
Board of Bell Telephone Laboratories •
• A
Laboratories
(llfr.
~-
lllorgan left the bearing room.)
Before that, I waa President of Bell Telephone
President for a period of ten years and
Cb.airman· for a period of one. I am still a member of the
Board of Directors of Bell Telephone La. boratories.

lllif 3283~ Docld:364792 Page 117
2102
3 Q Your training bas been that of what?
A I hold a doctor's degree in Physics, and after
• obtaininc that at Cornell Ulliversity, went to the Bell

System -- really with the Western Electric Company Engineer-
ing Department which later was merged into Bell Telephone
Laboratories - and spent my whole professional career in
that organization in one way or another, 8lrept for a period
of one year in the signal corps in the first world war •
•
Q During the Second World War, did you hold a
defense position?
A I was a member of the Guided I.fissile Section or
• Division -- I forget just how they labeled it -- of the

National Defense Research Collllllittee and Chairman of the
particular of that that had to do with applications of
television to guided missiles. I was also for a time a
member of the Communications Division of NDRC.
(Mr. Morgan re-entered the hearing room.)
BY DIR. GARRISON:
Q Then after your service in World War Two, would

you state the gover11111t1ntal colllllittees on which you served
•
in connection with our defense work?
A There was another collllllittee an ad hoc committee --
that I served on for a short time durinc the war that perhaps
deserves mention. That was the !rational Academy of Science
Review Committee on Atomic ED8r1Y, which was, I think, for
llV 32835 Docid:364792 Page 118

2103
4 a short period in 1941. After the war, I served on ·the

Industrial Advi•OZ'l' Colllnittee of the Atomic Energy Commission
•
from October, 1947 to A\\gust 2, 1948, when I was appointed
to the General Advisory Committee and dropped off the Indus-
trial Advisory Colllllittee.
Q And you served on the General Advisory Committee
for six year?
A It will be six years the first of August. I am
nearing the end of my statutory term.

In April of. 1951 I was appointed Chairman of the
Science Advisory Collllllittee of the Office of Defense Mobiliza-
tion, wbich office I held ·: until Blay 15, 1952, when I .
• resigned because of 'illnesa, though remained at the request

of the President in my positionas a member of that committee.
I am still a member of that committee,

Q When did you first meet Dr. Oppenheimer, in what
year and what connection?
A I am not certain. I recall Dr. Oppenheime1· as a
younger man in presenting papers to the American Physical
•
Society which I attended. The first definite memory I have
of meetine him was while I was on the Industrial Advisory
• Committee of the Atomic Energy Colllllission.

Q
A
In 1941?
That would be 1947, when the Gt.C. met with the
Industrial Advisory Collllllittee on one 'occasion.
3283~ Doc~d:36,792 Page 119

2104
5 Q Were you cloaely asaociated with him -- I know
you were on the GAC - in the work of the Science Advisory
• COllllllittee of the Office of Defense Mobilization?

A I was, quite, because I sought his advice nt the
time I was considering acceptance of that appointment. Tile
•
Committee, as it waa orig:lnally proposed by some people

working in the Government, was not one I thought I could
accept, but with some moclific4tions I came to the conclu-
aion that I ought to accept it if it could be cut to fit my
ideas a bit better. I consulted Dr. Oppenheimer in this
connection and he waa very helpful in working out some of
• my problems in thia connection •
Q You remember, of course, the October 194S meeting

of the General AdVisory Committee that had to do with the
JI.Bomb program.
A I have refreshed my memory on that occasion by
looking up some notes in the AEC and recall some. things about
it.
Q Did you join in the so-called majority report at
the October meeting?
•
A I did •
Q Did you later at the next meeting in December or
before then aubmit and additional atatement of your own?
A Yea. That was the meeting early in December
December 3 .'. I wrote up a separate attachllent that did not .
llW 3283~ Docid:364792 Page 120

2105
6 in -.y opinion reverse the position I had taken, but elaborated

on it' from my point of view. There was no attempt in
•
that statemeDt to express the views of other members of the
committee, but rather my own interpretation of what the
committee statment sienified.
Q Would .YOU care to summarize as briefly as you can
for the Board what your position in the matter was?
A I shall have to refer to my notes to do that. I

haven't a traliscript of that thing.
lllll. ROBB: Excuse me, Doctor, is that your letter
of December 3, 1949?
THE WITNESS : That is right •
• llR. ROBB:
THE WITNESS:
Would. you like to see that?
I have seen it. I saw it the other
day over at the AEC. I don't know whether there is anything

in there that is regarded as classified material at the
present time.
Ill. ROLAm>ER: I will have to consult the classifi-
cation officer.
lllR. GARRISON: I didn't intend to ask Me. Buckley
to go into much detail but just state the essence of his
• position r i thout reading from the text.

MR. ROBB: Be could certainly have it before him
if he wishes to have it while he is testifying. It is

marked Top Secret.
1 lllf 3283~ Docld:36t792 Pave 121

31{!6
7 TBE WITHESS: This is the difficlllt:v with its

label. I felt at libert;v to make a few cryptic notes about
• it •
Ji!R. ROBB:
MR. GARRISOH:
Yea, indeed.
Do ;vou wish to have the text before
you?
TEE WITNESS: No, I don't have to bave the text
be fore 11111 •
nm. GAJ!RISON: I didp't ask for anything very

elaborate.
TEE WITHESS: Is there a security officer present?
• llR. ROLANDER:
asked for the Classification Officer.
I am the security officer.
talk in general teras you won't have any difficulty here,

But I think if you
I have
TEE WITNESS : Will you check - if I do 10 bey~nd
bounds?
MR. ROLANlER: I will try to be of service.
TEE WITNESS: I see no danger in discussing it, but
I don't wish to violate any security regl.ation.
lllR. GAJUlISOllT: Perhaps while we are waiting· for
•
him I could ask you one or two preliminary questions •
BY MR. GAIUlIS<B :
Q Bow did you come to write a statement of your own?

A. As I recall it -- ..i;v lll8lllOrJ' is not entirely clear
on this point - I thought that our statemant of October had
lllf 3283~ Docid:36t792 Page 122

2107
8 been misinterpreted and I thought that what I meant at any

rate in signins the statement needed more explanation than
•
the ..re statement itaelf save •
Shall I proceed.
MR. ROLAHDBR: The Classifi.cation man is here now,
Dr. Buckley, so if you would like to proceed you can check
with him any question that might arise.
THE WITNESS : This memorandum was based on the
question of an immediate all out effort on what was called
the Super, which was a hypothetical kind of a weapon at that
time, as I recall. I was at the time still opposed, as I
had been something a month earlier to a Crash Program to
• produce aomething that we didn't understand and the consequences

of which we did not understand. I based my opinion on certain
assumptions which I enumerated: (1) our ignorace of how to
build the Super or whether it could in fact be built at all;
(2) the great cost in money which it represented and the
div~rsion of effort from the A-Bomb program which it must
mean; (3) the small, if any, addition to military effective-
ness as I then viewed thisbypothetical weapon; (4)if we
can do it, the Russians can also do it, but they cannot do
• it so quickly.
I assumed those thinss were so.
others might not agree with those assumptio1111.
I noted that
It was the
way it looked to me. I 'endeavored to appraise what I would
llff 3283~ DocXd:364792 Page 123

2108
9 call the cood versus the barm of this development. It was,
I thought, a possible retaliatory weapon, one of doubtful
• value. It represented the diversion of effort from the

area of practical military weapons to the end only o.f exten-
sive rienecide and ruthless destruction. It micht have an
adverse effect on the accelo :atiou of Russian development.
It micht lead to a false sense of security and it represented
some loss of moral and political value in limitinc defense
activity to :l.utruments of military effectiveness. Those,
as I recall, with tile aid of my notes, were questions in lllY
mind based on the assU111ptions which I had made •
• Weighing the pros and co1111 as best I could, I

favored very careful systems analysis of the Super program,
and an active program of research -- doinc everything that
we could see needed to be done to establish whether this
thing could be done and how - so that we could know what
we were making policy about. This was one of the things
that troubled me: That we were advisiq on policy about
a thing that we didn't understand and see our way through
on. r·thoUcht that weoupt to see our way through and not
•
be hysterical about an all out development and production of
a weapon of which we knew so little and without compromisingo
our position and restricting production to weapons of pre-
dominantly military value. llfy notes are not too clear on
thi.s point. I am rather cryptic and I would refer you to
lllf 3283' DocXd:36•792 Page 124

2109
10 the document itself.
I favored strongly building a large stock of
•
A-Bomba at the same time that we pursued this Super iclea
further in the laboratory aDd by test shots of various sorts
that would lay a sound engineering foundation tor doing the
job.
That is what I scratched in an obscure way out ot
my notes and the document lllBY not be entirely consistent
with those words, but the general idea that I had was that
I thought we ought to proceed with reF;t.Jarch aDd development
parts of these things rather than an all out production
immediately of something we didn't understnad either physi-
• cally or with regard to its probably consequences.

BY &IR, GABRISOH:
Q After President Truman directed in January, 1950,

that work in co111Stion -- I am not trying to state exactly
what his directive was, ))ut I think you Jmowat I mean --
that work on the thermo-nuclear wapon should move forward
actively, what would you say as to the cooperation or lack
. of cooperation of the members of the GAC, particularly
Dr. OppeDheiMr, with the national policy?
• A I think all members of the GAC accepted the Presi-

dent• a decisionas a definite determination of policy to
which we were bound and all of us, along with Dr, Oppenheimer,
conducted ourselves accordingly from thence on, There was DO
llV 32835 Docld:364792 Page 125

2110
11 argwaent, about it. That was the policy. However, we did

persist in our opinion that the A-Bomb stockpile should be
enlarged and that development should proceedin that field
as well, which I think was consistent with the President's
order.
Q Do you feel that your associations with Dr. Oppen-
heimer in the years that you served with him on G&C and your
service with him on the Science Advisory COmmittee were
sufficiently close to enable you to form a judgment as to
his character and loyalty to the United States?
A The question never arose in m.y mind as to whether
• he was loyal to the United States.

that he was and is loyal to the United States.
I believed and believe
recall any event that even raised that issue in

I just don't
m.y mind.
Q Would you have any comment as to the quality of
his service in those years to the cquutry?
A This is in the po&t-.ar years you are speaking of?
Q Yes.
A I think it was extraordinary service to the country.
The job of being ch&:!x'.man of the G&C is a very he&vY and
•
time consuming job. Be was our unaminous chairman during
•
the period that m.y service overlapped his and he was so out-
staDdiDClY good in that position that if you give value to
the services of the G&C you must also give irreat value to
the service of its chairman who was an excellent chairman.
llW 3283l Docld:364792 Pa9e 126

2111
12 Q What would you say as to his di•cretion or lack of

discretion, particularly with reference to his knowledge of
•
classified material of a very secret character?
A I assumed and believed him to be discreet with
reference to •uch .. terial.
Q You read the Commission's letter of December 23,
1953, to Dr. Oppelllleimer which initiated these proceedings.
A I read it in the newspaper.

Q Do you have the same confidence in him today that
you had when you served with him in the past-war years?
A Yes.
I think tbat is all, Mr. Chairman •
•
MR. GARRISON:
MR. GRAY: Mr. Robb.

CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. BOBB :
Q Doctor, are you a nuclear physicist?

A I am not, •ir.
Q So in respect of the question of the feasibility
of a Super bomb, I •uppose you bad to rely on the opinions

of others, didn't you?
A That is right •
• Q
A
Whose opinion did you rely on, Doctor?
I gave i:reat weight to Dr. Oppenheimer's opinion.
I st41sequently to the letter of which I just spoke visited
Los Ala- and heard a di&CUS!Sion of it by Dr. Teller and got
llW 3283~ DocXd:364792 Page 127

2112
13 a briefiac on it, you might say. I could not analyze that
or criticize it as a physicist, of course.
• Let me say that so far as I could Wld11rstand it,

it was consistent with the opinion that I bad formed after
heariq from Dr, Oppenheimer and others, that it wi;is one of
these tilings that bad a speculative chance. It was a hypo-
thetical kind of thing mlld not the kind of a thing that was
developed later.
Q Doctor, you said that you felt that your subscrip-
tion to the majority report of the GAC of the October, 1949
meetiq had been misinterpreted, I believe you said.
•
A I tlliuk that is stated in the document that I
wrote and, I think, misunderstood.
Q Would you explain that to us a little bit, Doctor?
A Yes. As I look back on it, that statement doesn't
fully reflect our discussion at that meetins because I
believe that it was the general opinion that research in
the direction of thermonuclear weapons should be heavily
pushed. I can't prove that but I think that was the posi·~ion.
I believe that I thought it was the position at the time I
•
wrote this memorandum, But further than that, I can't recall •
That was not brought outin the October statement, you see,
Q I see.
A As a matter of fact, there was work going. on already
and work planned ahead at the time of this thiDC beins set up.
llV 3283~ Docid:364792 Page 128

2113
14 It waa dOWD the thermonuclear alley. The question at issue
was a crash proiiram to build a hypothetical Super, as I
•
recall it. l(y memory may not be accurate but that is the
beat I can recall.
I think that memorandum which I endeavored to svii:
up is consistent with that point of view because in the me1110-
randtllll I did not take exception to the prior statement •.· I
was in my lllind elaborating on it. I did not attempt, as I
said, to reflect the opinion of all the others. But I
believe on that point it was consistent with the position
that the GAC took at that time and had taken previously.
Q Doctor, do you recall in your later memorandum
• makinc some reference to a public commitment not to develop

the thermonuclear weapon?
r.m. GARRISON: Would you make that a litt"le 1111Dre
clear?
I
THE WITNESS: I don't recall offhand.

BY MR. ROBB:
Q Let me show it to you.

A That is a statement, I think, of my opinion at •
that time •
• Q Having looked at this do you now remember that you

did make some reference as to whether there should or should
not be a public collllllitment not Go develop the weapon?
MR. GARRISOH: Could you read the sentence?
IHI 3283~ Docid:364792 Page 129

2114
15 MR. BOBB: llfaY I read this, Mr. Classification
Officer?
• llll. UARSJIAIJ.: lfay I see it, please?

MR.. ROBB:
BY MR. ROBB:
Yes (handing) •
Q I want you to explain this and what caused to put

thatln. The-two sentences I have 1D Bind are these: "What-
ever course of action ls adopted in the development of Super
bmahs I do not wish at this time to recommend for or against
a public colmllitment not to develop the weapon, aor have I
any apeclflc recommendation as to declassification. Some
• public aDDouucemant of policy lllllY be necessary or desirable

but I do not feel able to advise wisely."
Would you 111Dd explaininc what you had in mind?
A It seems to me it hardly needs explaining. I
think that is a clear statement.
Q I just wondered if tberehad been some discussion
in the GAC as to whether there should be a public commitment
or not.·
A I don't recall any. There may have been, but I
•
don't recall it,
Q Bad there been any discussion as to declassifica-
tiuu?
A I don't recall that there was any at:all.
llll. ROBB: That is· all I care .to ask, llr. Chairman.
llW 32835 Docid:364792 Page 130

2115
16 MR. GRAY: lllr. Buclcley. you bave made a distinction,
I think, in your testimony between reseBl'ch and development
•
or partial development on the one band, and an all-out pro-
duction effort on the other. This is .a distinction I believe
you made and I believe you have stated that you were opposed
to what has been called the crash or all-out effort on the
Super. At least this was your position and was the maJority
position of the GAC in theOctober, 1949 meeting.
I think you also testified that you felt, however,
that we should bave an active program of research.. I believe
those wereyour words.
•
Did you later feel that the interpretation of the
written report of·the October, 1949 meetina lead people to
believe thatyou had been opposed as a committee to active
research? Is that one of the reasons you felt that you
wanted to make a clarifying statement later?
THE WITNESS: I now believe, or, as I recall,
that was my position on the thing. I wasn't aware that there
was any great difference in the comnittee on this thing. I
wanted to state it more e:s.plici tly. Perhaps in that colllllli t-
tee I had been rather often making the point that we ought
• to do what I called systeD1S analysis to see as far as we

could where we are IOiDg before we embark on a heavY develop-
lllQDt program •
.Ill. GRAY: I am a layman. Would systems development
llW 32835 Docld:364792 Page 131

2116
17 be the •a- thine asactive research?

TBB WITNESS: No. Syste- develppant would be
• a paper study, generally speaking --those aupportod by

e:speriments -- to detel'llline systeJ1111tically ends and possible
•au of achieviq those ends in the nature of a technical
survey and eDlarginc the technical grounds for planning a
program with these ends in view.
I thought we ought to see our way throU&fh just as
far as we could and build up as good a technical background
for a prOflram as we possible could andthat this would be
the economical and speedy way to do the job, whatever job
• appeared to be i:ood to do •
MR. GRAY: Would you forgive ma just a moment
while I glance at your letter.
Your feeling is that your participation as a member
of that October ••ting <lid not in any way commit you agaiDSt
the development of this weapon althouch you did oppose all
out production?
THE WITBESS: You could say an all-out development
and production program. I thought that a more careful study
•
of the problem based on further ezperimenting than had been
done and based on oar military objectives might lead to some
major modification of the program, but it was not to my mind
a determination advice on our part not to pursue the study
of tbermonuclear weapons. Is that clear?
IRif 3283~ Docid:36§792 Page 132

2117
18 ll!R. GRAY: Yes, I think you bave answered the
question.
•
TBB Wl'l'HESS : That is the way I now recall my posi-
tion which I think is fairly set forth iD tbat letter which
I wrote.
MR. GRAY : Ur, Garrison, do you have any further
questions?
MR. GARRISON : Ro, ·
MR. ROBB : I bave DO further questions, Mr. Chair-
man.
MR. GRAY: Thank you very much, Doctor; we appre-
ciate ypu beiq here •
• (Witness ezcused)
llR. GRAY: ·Who is the next witness, llfr. Garrison?
MR. G4RRISOB: Dr. Bacher, lllr. Chairman.
llll. GRAY: Dr. Bal:her, do you wish to testify under
oath?
DR. BACBER: I would be very glad to, if you so
~. h
nm. GRAY: You are not required to, but all other
witnesses have done so •
• DR. BACBBll:
nm. GRAY:
·1 should be &lad to do so.
Would you stand and raise your risht
hand, please, and also g:ive .e your full name.
DR. BACBBll: Robert Paz Bache.r.

2118
19. llR. GRAY: Robert Fox Bacher, do you swear that
the testimony you are to give the Board &hall be t.he truth,
• the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
DR. BACHER:
m. GRAY:
I do.
Would you be seated, please, sir.

I am required to call your attention to the exis-
tence of the 110-called perjury statutes. lllay I assume you
are familiar with them and their penalties and it is unneces-
sary to review them?
DR. BACHER: I think I am,
lllR. GRAY: I should like to ask, Dr, Bacher, if
• in the course ofyour testimony you find it necessary to refer

to or disclose restricted data that you notify me in advance
so that we might take certain appropriate and necessary steps,
I should also make the same observation to you that
I have tried to reMmber to make to all the witmeses, that
we consider these proceeainaa a confidential matter between

the Atomic EJlergy COllllliss1on and its officials on the one .
band and Dr. Oppenheimer and his representatives and witnesses
on the other. The Commission is making no releases to the
•
press and on behalf of the Board I e:cpress the hope that the
witnesses will take the same course of action.
1111". Garrison, will you proceed.
MR. GAJUlISOH: Yes, Ur. Chairman.
llW 3283~ DocXd:36•792 Paqe 13t

2119
20 DIRECT EXAllIBATION
BY Ill. CWIRISOH:
Q Dr. Bacher, would you atate :your present position?
• A I am Chairman of the Division of Physics, Mathema-

tics and AstrODOlllY and Professor of Physics at Cal Tech.
Q Where did you receive :vour academic training?
A I went as an undergraduate to the University of
11:.1.chigan, took a bachelor'• degree, and later a doctor's
degree in ph:ysics in 1930.
Q Bow loq have you kDOWD Dr. OppeDhei-r, npproxi-
•
mately?
A Approximatel:r,aince 1929 or 1930 when he visited
• the University of Michigan during the summer to give some

lectures there in the sumi.,er symposium in theoretical
ph:rsics.
Q When did you first get to know him very well?
A That was somewbat later. I lmff him throup the
thirties. If I recall correctly, he lectured in Ann Arbor
once or twice more in the early thirties and I think I was
present at that time. During the fall of 1930 I was National
Research Fellow at the California Institute of Technology
• and he was lecturing there during the fall term.

quite frequently durins tbat period.
I saw him
Later than that I
saw.him only occasionaly at meetinp or at other times. I
remember at one time seeiq him in the winter of 1934 in
IHf 3283~ Docid:364792 Page 13~

2120
21 lfew York wben I was an instructor at Col\llllbia and be was
visiting his father there. Between then and tbe war period
• I think I saw him only occaaionally at scientific meetilllJS •

lf;v close aaaociation witb bim began just prior to tbe estab-
liablll8nt of the Loa Alamos Laboratory.
Q Suppose you just state what your government service
has been beginDiDI with your work at Loa Alamos.
A I came to Loa Alamos from the Radiation Laboratory
at lf.I.T. wbere I had been for two years anda half and on
the occasion of the starting of the laboratory at Los Ala1110s.
There was a conference when that laboratory was started. I
•
attended the conference. It waa decided during; the confere:ace
that I would join the laboratory and I did, in charge of the
Division of Experimental Pbysica.
In the aU11111er of 1944 tbe laboratory was re-organized
and I became tbe head of .the Bomb Physics Diviaion, which
was a position I held until tbe end of the war. This involw
in both capacities very close contact with Dr. Oppenheimer
and this contact waa, I would say, daily and very close.
Q What was your ne:t g;overuaent service?
A lib' next g;overDlll8nt service, I f I recall correctly,
• was on a committee having to do with declassification which

was aet up by the Manhattan Diatrict at the end of the war.
I think I served on one other committee for tbe llaDhattan
District and I don't recall exactly what the title of that
11¥ 3283~ Docid:36,792 Pa9e 136

2121
22 comm. ttee was. Tb.en during the s~r of 1946 I served as

a scientific advisor to the Ullited States Delegation to the
•
UDited Nations Atomic EDer17 Connntasion •
Q In tbat coDDectioD you had an opportunity to see
Dr. Oppenheimer aome more?
A Yes.
Q What next after that?
A After that in October of that year, or it was
the first of November I became a member of the Atomic Energy
Commission and was a member of the Atolllic Energy Commission
until I left in mid-May, 1949,
•
Q Have you had government service since then?
• A Since then I bave been an advisor to the Atomic

Energy CoimtssioD and still and advisor to the Atomic Energy
Conmiasion.
I have been first a member of a panel on long range
objectives, I think it was called -- this may not be quite .
the right title for it ~ of the Committee on Atomic EnertrY
of the Research and Development Board from spring, 1951 until
its dissoluti~n in 1953. I was chairman of the Commitee on
Atomic EDeru of the Research aDd Development Board •
•• Q
A
Was Dr. Oppenheimer a member of that committee?
Dr. Oppenheimer was a meaber of that committee. I
am presently a member of the technical panel on atomic energy
of. tlie Office of Auiatant Secretary of DefeDSe for Research
llW 3283~ DocXd:364792 Pave 137

2122
23 alld Development. There may be &OM other& which I have
forgotten for the 111011ent.
• Q Goiuc back to the Loa Alamos period, bow much did

you aee of Dr. OppeDb.eimar in those yeara from April 1943
to the cloae?
A A very great deal. Jlucb of the work for which I
waa respoDBible was very close to the baart of our problem

of makins an atomic weapon. The de•lld wali for much infor-
mation from other parts of .the laboratory and in particular

needed a great deal of guidance from the theoretical people.
As a consequence of this, in particular, I saw a
• great deal of Dr. OppeDbeimer. It.would be bard for me to

estimate bow much I saw him but it &eellB to me looking back
,.
on it that there was acareely a day going past that I did not
spend an hour or more with him.
Q When he went away did you from time to time act
as Acting Director of the Project?
A I think not in any official capacity, but I believe
scmetimea wben he left the laboratory he did leave me in

charge.
•
owers fols
ltlf 32835 Docid:364792 Page 138

2123
.owflsp Q Did you yourself go on any official missions with

him?
• A On a number of occasions I -nt cm official missions

with Dr. Oppenheimer, trips to theeast and in some cases to
the west coast, where we needed to get inforuation for the
project.
Q Do you have any recollection of his political views
in those years as he may have expressed them to you iu talks
that you may have bad?
A We were pretty busy trying to make an atomic bomb
and - didn't talk about many other things. I was aware of
• the fact that Dr. Oppenheimer seei.d to be a Democrat and views
that one would associate tath h:ls being a Democrat.

upstate New York Republican, and we used to jo~e
I was an
about this
from time to time. But we didn't have much political discussion.
Q Coming to the period of your service on the Atomic
Energy COllllllission, I would like to ask you to recall what
you can of the actions tba ·t were taken with respect to Dr.
Oppenheimer's clearance in 1947.
A I might say in this respect that I did refresh my
•
memory on this point by consulting some of the minutes of the
Commission, because when I started to think about it, I found
I didn't have all of it so clear in my mind.
The consideration of the &P$)0intment of the General

Advisory Committee to the Commission was taken up at one of

2124
the early meetinp of the Commission. In fact, if my memory

serves me now on this refreshing of this morning, it was at
•
the second meeting at wh:lda this was discussed •
This had to do with who were to be the members of tlll
General Advisory Cmmittee.

b
Q This is about what time?
A This was about the 20th of November, I think.
Q Of whatyear?
A Of 1946. Then a little later
Q Before the appointment of the GAC?
A Yes. Then a little later there was some discussion
of the question of making .some announce-nt about this, of the
• appointments which had then been made by the President.
have forgotten exactly when that was, but I presume in the

I
interim period rec0111111endations had been made to the
President, and he bad approved these and actually appointed
the members of tile Committae.

Q Let me ·just ml£e sure I understand. The Atomic
Bnergy Coisission recommended soma names to the President for

appointment to the GA<;:?
A That is right. It was a presidential appointment .
• Q Were the people appointed by the President the same
as tbose who bad been recoi.ended?
A If I re-lllber correctly, tbat is so.
Q In any event was Dr. Oppenheimer among those
R1f 3283~ Docid:364792 Page 140

2125
reco-Dcled?
A It was , Jes •
• whole?
Q
A
This was a recommendation of the Commission as a
This was a reccmnendaticm of the Commission as a
wbole.
Q lfow, coming to the clearance and tbe actions that

bad to do with his clearance, would you saJ what JOU can
remember of that?
A If I recall correctlJ, clearance at the start of

the Commission activities was for the moat part just carrying
• over clearance that had beai siven under the Manhattan
District. Also, if I recall correctly, all members t1 the

General Advisory Committee had during the war some access to
acU.vities in the llahhattan District, and some of them had

been emploJees for an extensive period and eontinued to hold
Manhattan District clearance up to that time. If I remember
correctly, this clearance was then just continued, because it
too k some t i • to get clearance procedures, and so on, under
the Atomic Enera Act into full operation. So this was the
•
first basis of clearance. For new emploJ... , there had to
be from the time the Atomic Energy Conaission took over

investigation under the Act.
o What do JOU next r-emher !ibout Dr. Oppenheimer's
clearance?

2126
A I recall that dUl!'ing the epring of 1947 this

question was diecuseed. I am not preci•ely sure in response
•
to what, but I think in response to a query to the CoDDDission •
I remember that we looked at various ti•s through that perlod,

'
first a su-.ry of infor-tion from tbe FBI, and later a
quite volWDinous file. Exactly wben tbatis done, I am afraid
l don't remember.
Q Do you bave a recollection of having examined then

both tbe sulllll&l'y and some kind of a file?
A Yes.
Q Do you bave any recollection at all as to the

approxi. . te dimensions c1 these· documents?
• A I am afraid I don't , 'except that the file , I remember,

was a fairly thick document. I don't know, something lille
this (indicating).
MR. GARRISON: Mr. Chairman, in connection with the
examination of llr. Lilienthal• there was put into the record
at page 1409 of the transcript a melllOl'andum from Mr. Jones,
the security officer, to Yr. Bellesly, which contained a
reference of·which·I,·wou--ld···just read one sentence. This is a
note by llr. Volpe in longhand on the file, and it says--
• this is dated July 18 -- "Jl,v impression is that the CoDDDission

saw no need for for . . 1 action following tbe -ting they had
with llr. Hoover, referred to in Lilienth&l's letter of April 3,
to the FBI Director."

·~127
We asked for the documents pertaining to this matter

when we were in the course of examining llr. Lilienthal.
• llR. ROBB:
MR. GARRISON:
What - s that?
This is a letter of llr. Lilienthal
of April 3 to Mr. Hoover, referred to in llr. Volpe's longhand
note on the Jones memorandum to Bellesly of July 18.
MR. Ram: I am sorry. I fell off on the first
turn of that, Mr. Garrison. What was tbe questlon?

MR. GARRIS<lf: Wba t· I was going to ask the Chairman
was to have the letter of April 3 in the record so that we
might see wba t it wu that llr. Lilienthal wrote to l4r. Hoover
• because I think it micht help to clarify the matter under
discussion.
lllR. Ram: I have it before me. Shall I read it?
This is a copy. I assume it is thG one of April 3, 1947:
"TOJ/D", !n the upper right hand corner.
"Honorable J. Edcar Hoover,
"Federal Bureau of Investigation
"U. s. Department of Justice,

"Washincton, D. c.
•
"Dear Mr. Hoover:
"As agreed at our recent meetinc I am fOllWarding

for your information COPies of letters in the possession of
'
the Atomic Energy COlllllllsion concerninc Dr. J. Robert
Op11enheilll9r, as well as papers relating to the award of the
llW 32835 DocXd:36•792 Page 1t3

?.128
lfedal of Merit to Dr. Oppenheimr.

"Sincerely yours. David E. Lilienthal, Chairman."
•
''Enclosures: cc llr. Lilienthal
"File 2."
Then some lonchand notes: ''EnclO.ur-, papers on
Medal of Merit, letter from Conant, Patterson,· Groves, Bush.''
That is in longhand.
"Distribution: 1 and 2. to Mr. Hoover. 3 and4 to

llr. Lilienthal. 5 r-ding file. 6 records section file."
JIR. GRAY: That ill tbe longhand note?
llR. Ram: The one llr. Garrison read, "My impression
is that the Commission saw no need for formal action followiq
• the meetina;( they had with llr. Hoover, referred to in Lilienthal 's
letter of April 3, to the PBJ Director."

That apparently was sending the Medal of Merit award
- had here, and the letters from Patterson, Groves, Conant

and the otbers.
llR. GARllJSOlf: This seems to refer to a -ting
with llr. Hoover.
MR. Ram: That was a -tine on which there was a
mtmorandum written by Mr. Jones,which was read into evidence,
•
(
on llarch 27, 1947. That is in the record some place.

llR. GARRISON: llr. Chair8&11, J have some more
requests for infonation tbit.t J think the Commission can cive
us about the history of tbese events tbat J would like to

I
2129
submit to the Board, but I don't want to talla the time now
while Dr. Bacher is on the stand. I thought possibly the
• particular letter might throw a little mare light •
might.
llR. ROBB: Maybe I can throw some light on it, if I
r.nt. GRAY: If you are going to pursue questioning

of Dr. Bacher about those events, or :if you are, Mr. Robb,
I think it might be helpful to Dr. Bacher to have hie recollec-
tion refreshed because people seem not to remember this period
very clearly.
TBE WITNESS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
• MR. GARRISON:
MR. Ram:
What is there, Mr. Robb?
I don't know' whether I am at liberty
under the rules to tell you, but apparently a number of

people were interviewed concerning Dr. Oppenheimer. I think
Dr. Bacher was interviewed. I think that material was in the
file before the Board.
MR. GRAY: One thing it seems to me that Mr. Garrison
is perhaps groping for is the posdlibility that there 11111y halre
been a meeting of the full Commission with lilr. Hoover. Mr.
Lilienthal testified, did he not, about a conversatt.on?
MR. RCBB: That is right.

MR. GRAY: That is, with Mr. Hoover at a time when
he was accompanied by the Deputy Counsel of the Commission.
It would be my guess on the bllsis of anything I have heard,
IHf 3283~ Docid:364792 Page 14~

21ao
l!afr. Garrison, that there was not a full meeting of the

Commission with llr. Hoover, but this I am not sure about.
llR. R~: If there was; I find no reflection of it
• in this file.
MR. ROLAHDER: The only record in the file of such
a meeting waa the one discussed and introduced in the record

when llr. Lilienthal testified.
MR. GRAY: And this involved a visit to Mr. Hoover's
office of r.tr. Lilienthal and Ur.Volpe.
llR •. BOLANDER: That is right.
MR. GRAY: I woulld guess tbs Co1111issioners would
re-mber if they went in a body to Mr. Hoover •
• ·l\IR, ROI.ANDER: The memorandum in discussing the
meeting, it refers to meeting between representatives "Clfthe

Atomic Energy Commission and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Whether that includes all members of the Co-1ssion, I just
don't know.
MR. GAIUUSON: Could we have read into the record
the portion of the minutes of August 6, 1947, relating to the
matter Qf Dr. Oppenli.eimer's clearance?
llR, ROBB: I thought this thing that had lltr. Volpe•s
•• note on it was all there was on it •

MR. GARRISON:
MR. ROBB:
llfr. Volpe'& note was before 1hat.
Bare is a: paper here, August 11, 1947,
from T. O. Jones to William Uanna, "S~:ect: .J. Robert
I llV 32835 Docld:36.4792 Page 146

".131
Oppenheimr • ·•
MR. GARRISON: This refers to the -ting and. l think
• tbat was read into the record.
llR. Ram: "Authorization for srantiq final Q type
clearance, Aucust 8."

llR. GAJUlISCllT: What I would like to bave is the
actual August 6jh meeting.
llR. ROI.ANDER: l think - had in the record a

•tipulation as to what the Dlinutes reflected. Isn't that
aatisfactory?
MR. GAJUlISON: It did not se- to - to be a
• quotation from the minutes, but rather a stipulation by the
Commiasion that clearance be recorded, or so•tbiq of that
•tter. At least it did not on its face appearto be a quotation
from the minutes.
llR. aam: I don't kno1r. Frankly I did not concern
my•elf with it in view of the stipulation. I have never
looked at the· minutes.
· llR. KOLANDER: l don't think we can state the actual
Commiasion minutes. The Commission minutes as such,l don't
•• believe it proper for us to quote them. Tberefol'e, at that
t i - the·CoDBission did, early in the proceedinp, agree to
a stipulation as to what took place. That is what - bad

hoped to make a part of this record,ancl ~ a~ready been made
1;i. part of the record.
llV 3283~ Docid:364792 Pa9e 147

2132
llR. GARRISON: Mr. Chairman, I am not asking for any
portion of the llinut- whichmight have to do With
•
extraneous mattei"s, but only that portion which relates to
Dr. Oppenheimer's clearance, and it seem to - that is a

piece of information very relevant to this proceeding, and
certainly can evolve no matter of improper information to be
read into a record like this.
lllR. GRAY: I am not in6rmed about th& minutes or
about the procedures of th& co-ission not making its minutes
available. I think in this case I will have to rely on
the representative of the Commission, lllr. Kolander, who says
·-
that you do not think the ·pertinent portioDB al the minutes can
be read into the record?
DIR. ROLAMDER: That is my understanding, yes.
MR. RCBB: I might say, llr. Chairman, that I don't
think either I or Mr. Kolander would have authority in the

light of what, I take it to be policy to make any commitment.
I th:llk it probably should be submitteci to th& Commission for
its ruling.
14R. GRAY: If· you wish, Jfr. Garrison, now to make a
request of that sort, I certainly will transmit it. I don't
• think anybody here has authority to grant it.
of
llR. GARRISmi:
that sort , Mr. Chainan.
I would like to make a formal request
As I read the rul- of these
proceedings, I JDUSt say I .•ieie nothing in them tlat would stand
llllf 32835 Docld:364792 Page 148

11
2133
in the -y of that. On the contrary, it see• to • that

tbe emphasis on obtaining all relevant information wh:llh is
• set forth explicitly in the rules Should make this infor. . tiOD
available both to the Board and to us.
UR. R<BB: I - not deb&tinc tbat with Yr. Garrison,
Jlr. Chairman. We would be happy to transmit the request to
the Commission, but I don't think I !me the opportunity to
say whether or not they will do it.
Im. GARRISON: Then 9e have made the request, !.Ir.
Cbairmn.
MR. GRAY: Yes.
• MR. GARRISON:
on this mtter, and ask him to r-mber.

BY lllR. GARRISON:
I would like to proceed with Dr. Bacher
Q You told ua now you have the recollection of having

gone over a • - r y . Do ymrecollect anywhere near at all
how many pages that aay have been?
A No; if I bad to make an estimate I would guess

around 30 or 40 pages or somthing of that sort.
Q In addition to that, a thicker file?
•
A At a later date, if my -mory -rvea me correctly,
I believe - -nt over a very much thicker file, and I believe
it - . revie~ by the other COllllllissionera, too.
Q Do you remlllber discua•inc this with other Conmissioners·
A Yes.
llW 32835 Docid:364792 Pave 149

......
"1134.
Q What do you remember?

A I don't remember very much about tll8 discussion with
the other Coanisaioners, except tbat I re-i>er either before
• or during tll8 Commission meeting referring to various parts

of it which seemed to be relevant to happenings in tlB past
that -- thousht - oucht to know about. I can't reDJ)mber very
much at the moment just what was said about that. Butvre did
review that and discuss it in the Commission meeting.

Q Do you recollect any decision on the matter or any
conclusion?
A My memory is that whe.n a query was addressed to the
C~isaion, it seemed appropriate to us to consult with some
• of the people with whom Dr. Oppenheimer bad worked during the
war other than ourselves. I can't remember exactly'l'lbo was
consulted, but I am relatively sure that Dr. Bush and Dr.

Conant were consulted. I don't remember who else was consulted.
After consultation with these people and a review of the file,

tbe question was d:lll:uaaed by the Comiiuion a:ad I th:i:nk tbe
conclusion was arrived at tbat the Coaaisaion saw no reason

in vi- of tbe intor-.tion which bad been brought up to take
any different action on the clearance of Dr. Oppenheimer than
•• that which had already been taken.
A
·- Do you know Mr.
I do.
S~ber?
llW 3283~ Docld:364792 Page l~O

?.135
llR, RCBB: Did JOU - J llr. or Jira.?

llR. GARRISON: I will ask about both.
• A
('
Yes.
BY lllt, GARRISON:
Do JOU know llr. and llrs. Serber?
r lfbere did JOU firat know them?

A I can't remember when I first met them. I presume
tbat I knew them before the war, but if so, onlJ very sli,htly.
The first I knew them really at all well was at Los Alalll08.
Dr. Serber was a member of tbat labaa.tory and was there
when I arrived.
• Q
at the time?
A
Did you know anything '1 their political tackground .
I would say no.

o Did the question of Dr. Serber' • clearance com up
when JOU were a member of the Atomic Ener17 Commission?
A It did.
Q What was donl about it?
A If I recall correctly, Jll'. Serber's clearance came
up as part of the re-investigation of all co.ntractors' employees.
•
There was a certain amount of deroptory information in the
file that appeared. I bave forgotten exactly what happened
in the local office out th_.e, but it was concluded that there·
oqht to be a hearinc board se~ up on thi...

Q The local off ice where?
lllf 3283~ Docid:364792 Page 1~1

!4
2136
A Tb• local office on the Pacific Cout. A hearing

board was set up on the Pacific Coast, I believe out of the san
.
•
Francisoo office, and I can't remember 1111 members of. that
hearing board, but if I remember correctly, Admiral Nimitz
was the Chairman of it. Tbe hearins board me a report
which I believe was transmitted to the COllllllission, and the

COllllllission acted favorably on clearance after the hearing.
Q Did the Panel recommend clearance?
A If my memory serves • correctly, th.Y did.
lllR. GARRISON: Mr. Chairman, our information is, I
feel quite certain, that ·the Atomic Enern Commission records
will mar this out. I would siaply like to sta for the
• record subject to verification, which I am sure can be '8&de

by Mr. JU.tchell or Mr. Rolander, that the panel in addition
to Admiral Nimitz aa Cbairm.n, consisted of Mr. John Francis
Neyland, regent of the University of california, and a lawyer,
well known. I think he was counsel to the Hearst interests
in San Francisco. AJd Major General Joyce, of the Marines.
If I could just state that in the record and ask if that could
be ehecked.
YR. ROBB: I believe that is correct, lllr. Garrison •
• Q
BY MR. GARRISOll':
What was the date of that?
MR. RCBB: I don't have it.
BY llR. GARRISON:
ll1f 32835 Docid:364792 Page 152

2137
Q Do you recall about when this was after the start

of the Coa11isaicm? Would you date it from there?
• of
A
1948.
Q
I would think this was 1947 or perhaps the beginning
I am not clear on the date.
Do you have occasion to see Dr. Serber now from time
to tim?
A Yes. Be ila professor of physics at Columbia
University, and I see him fi•om time to t i - when I go to New

York.
Q Do you see Ill's. Serber from t i - to time?
A Occasionally.
• Q When you say wben you go to Bew York, in connection

with what would this noraally be?
A In connection with Physieal Society metinp ar other
scientific meetings in JfeW·York. Professor Berber is now
spending, I believe, one day a week out at Broolc1-ven
Laboratory, in particular in the interpretd.on of so• of the
work they are doing with their high energy accelerator out
there, their cosmotron. This ia related to work that I am
closely interested in, so I see him from time to time because
•
he ha• the - t interesting information on what is going on
there.
Q Do you know whether a Q clearance is called for by
that sort of work?

A I don't kDow. I pres- he - t have sou sort of
llW 3283~ Docid:364792 Page 1~3

lCJ
2138
clearanc• to be a rer;ulru· consultant to the Brocld:aven
Laborato:i.·y, but what sort af clearance he has, I ~on't know.
• I nevor have any questions concerned with classified
icforms.tion to discuss with him.
Q What was the chAracter of the cleara:uc:e which the
I.EC grar.ited in 1947 or 1948, whenever it was?
A I believethis was a Q clearance tbat he was granted
at that ti-.
Q Bave you ever heard of any action changing that?
A No.
llR. aam: 'l'his is Dr. Serber, and not Mrs. Serber.
• MR .. GARRISON: Yes. I don't believe she is a
physicist or works on government projects.
llR. aam: No.
BY llR. GARRISON:
Q Isn't that correct?
A No, she is not a physicist.
Q As a member of the Atomic Energy Co-isal. on, did
JOU have occasion to observe cloaelJ the work of tbe GAC?

A Yes, I think that mring the period I was .in
• Washiacton I probablJ f ollowect the work of the General Advisory
C0111111ittee more cloaelJ than anJ other 1111tmber of the Commission.
Thia was natural because I was the only one with a scientific
and technical background, and the work of the General Advisory
Committee was mostly scientific a:nd technical. l frequently
llW 32835 Docid:364792 Page 154

...
"1139
attend attended much of their meeting and read their reports

very carefully. They were very valuable to WI iD getting tile
• atomic energy enterprise back on its feet and getting

aomeof the work established that we thought -ght to get
established.
Q Would JIU make a comment 011 Jllr.. Oppenheimer's work
as chair-11 of that committee?

A It was outatading. Be wa• appointed a member of
the General Advisory Committee. The members of the General
Advisory CODSittee tbemselves elected h1lll chair-11 of tiu.t

c~ittee. Until he left,the committee, I believe, be
• continued to be cba1r1111. lile bad had the closest connection
wt th the weapons development work of any of the members of the
General Advisory COJ11111ittee.

In that priod in early 1947 when the General Advisory
Committee was set up, our greatest problem waa to try to set
tbe Los Alamos Laboratory in the development of weapons into
a aound shape. The Beneral Advisory Committee, I might add,
was vigorous 011 this point, and very helpful in getting the
laboratory into shape both by reason cl. the reco-ndations
·Which they made, and also the direct help that they gave us in
• connection with peraonnel for the laboratory.

Q What about Dr. Oppenheimer's individual contribution
in this effort?
A I would say in 111s effort Dr. Oppenheimer's
llW 32835 Docid:364792 Page 155

2140
individual contribution was the greatest of any member of

tbe General Bdvisory Committee. Be took his work on the
General Advisory Committee very seriously. lie usually c..- to
• Washington before the meetinp to cet material ready fer tbe

apnda and usually stayed afterWIUi to write a report of tlm
llltileting.
During the coirse of the meetiq prolonginc discussion
at great length so everybody would ei'press his views, neverthe-
less after the views lad been ezpr-sed, he had a very great
clarity in focusing these views of wbat would be a report of
the comiittee.
Q What was your normal routine when the General
• Advisory Committee Committee would meet in Washington?

When I say your routine, I mean the routine of tbe Atomic
Energy Commission. Did you meet with the GAC or how did that
work?
A If I recall correctly, usually the members of the
Comiission ca• in at the start after the -ting at least
for a little wllile and then usually before the end of a

meeting there was a session of the General Advisory Committee
with the Cmnm1ssion. SOllletimea this might.occur on a Sunday
•
..
afternoon, but usually there was a session at the end c1
the General Advisory Committee so that there could be

discussion of what appeared to be their rec~ndatiais. At
such tu. it was usual that Dr. Oppenheimer would give a
llW 3283~ Docid:364792 Page 1~6

2141
verbal su-ry in the presence of all the members cf the

General Advisory C:O-ittee, and of the C0111111issionaf their
• f'indings, and then these would be d:lacussed •
Q What was the character of the initial meeting

the members of the Atomic Energy Commission and the GAC?
b~tween
At
tbe start of the meeting, in ether words?
A I think this initial meeting was apt to be somewhat
less recular. Usually most of tbe members of. the Commission
went down; if I remember correctly,the Chairman, Mr. Lilienthal,
would generally convey to tbe Committee questicms which had
some up either within the Commission or from members of tbe
• staff to be imposed to the committee •

Q
A
There was verbal discussion?
There was verbal discussion.
Q You left the Atomic Energy Commission in ll!ay of 1949?
A l.lid-Jlay 1949.
Q So you were not present at the October meeting.

A No.
Q Did you remain as a consultant after you left tbe

COlllllliSS ion?
•
•
A Yes. I bave been an advisor to tbe Commission since
I left in 1949 and still am.
Q At the time of the Rusaian exploaicq did you lave
to do with assesaing tbe infor111&tion about that?
A Yes.
11¥ 3283~ Docid:364792 Page 157

2142
o Who else bad to do with.that?
A If I recall correctly, Dr. Bush was chairman of a
•
group called together in mid-September 1949 to assess the
information which was relevant to the determination of
whethez the Russians exploded an atomic bomb. The other

members of tbe group, if I recall correctly, were Admiral
Parsons, Dr. Oppenhei•r and myself, and I believe Dr. Arthur

Compton was suppoaed to be there, as a member of the group,
but could not co-. If I recall correctly there were just

four members of tbe Panel tbat -re set up t> assess this
information.
I can't give you the exact date on this, but it
• must have been about the 15th of September.
Q After President Truman's declration in Jauary 1950
about the thermonuclear program, did you make a speech on

the subject of the program?
A I made a speech called, "The &:vdr<>sen Bomb'', in
the end ctlilarch 1950. This 1s open and available for the record
and I am sure that looking this over will be much better than
any memory I have of what is in tbat speech.
Q I just want· to ask you two gemralquesti011s about it •
• Were you in that spach critical of President'TrwniLn•·s

declaration?
A No.
Q Wbat was the prim.pal point you made in that speech?
I lllf 32835 Docld:364792 Page 158

21
2113
A I would say there -re two points, but here I would

like any relllLl'ks tbat I lake to be subject 6o referral to the
• speech itself for anyone to judge what tbe speech says.

would say there were two principal point&. One, I had mia-
civincs about over-reliance ill a weapon whicb seemed to me
I
to not add much beyond .large fissiClll weapo11& to our national

arsenal, and second, I was very much concerned that tbere
was not more infcrmation available to the public Cll which sensible
opin:lala could be formed.
Q You said, I think, that you aerved 011 the Committee
on Atomic Enerey of the ReseR"Ch and Develop. .nt Board?
• A
Q
Yes •
And that you became Chairman at it and served. as
Chairman from 1951 to 1953?
A Yes.
Q Did tbatcomittee convene a panel ill late 1950 or

•
early 1951 to annsider our weapons procram?
A If I recall that is about the time that a panel was
convened for that purpose.
Q And you were a member of it?
•
A I was a member of a panel tbat was convened about
that t i - for studying our weapons proeram.

Q And Dr. Oppenheimer was a -mber of it?
A Yee.
Q And members of the lllilitary?
RW 32835 Docid:36•792 Page 159

2144
A Yes.
Q Yes. If I recall correc1'J', llr. Oppenheimer was
•
chairman of that panel and other •mber• were General Nichols
and Admiral Parsons, and I think General Wil•on from the Air
Poree, Dr. Alvarez, Dr. Lauritsen and lll)'Self. Some of these
may not be correct , but I think they are •.
Q Do you have any particularcommit. .nt on Dr.
Oppenheilller's service on both 'Dbe colllllittee and on the panel.
A If I recall correctly, the panel - t for two or
three days to discuas what might be the important areas for
procress. We .then divided up the various areas 1D study

so-what further to find out·a bit more about it and aa..
•· back at a subaequent day to write a report, and inoorporate

the views tof the var:!.oua days' smaller croups at that time.
With his unusually great Clarity Dr. Oppenhei-r succeeded
in turninc out a report that •tated very accurately what
the panel thought. in draft form. Thia was tben discussed
easenti,ally word bJ word by the panel, and a repor·t finally
appeared which presumably is available aome'lbere.
Q Prom yoir vantage point, if I may call it tbat, of
the Chairman of the Coaimittee on Atomic Enern in the years
• 1951 to 1953, have you any judpient which you could express
to the Board regarding any alleged or possible delays in tbe

production of thermonuclear weapons.
A I am. lly impression is that this went ahead pretty
IRf 3283~ Docid:364792 Page 160

21\5
fast. At least as faz as the reseazch and development work
went, allaf the effort tat could be put on this was put cm it .
• After a job iP done, i t iB always easier to look back and
say if we had not done this, we would bave aaved some time.
I believe tbat almost everything tbat was done ei'li&r in

•
fission weapo11& or in thermonuclear weapons was very relevant
to the job of making a thermonuclear weapon.
Q You are atill a consultant to the Department of
Defense?
A Yea. ..
Q You had todo with the Vista program?
A Yes.
Q Were you Cbairnan of tbe Vista Project?
A No. Dr. DuBridge was Chairman of tbe Vista Project.
Q Wba t was your sbare of it?
A I 11a11 responsible for one sectiOD of tbe project
which bad to do with atomic weapons •
0
.
You were in charge of that section?
A Yes.
r There bas been a good deal of testimony about 1his
•
project and I don• t want to duplicate the record about Dr •
. Oppenheimer's participation in it, and so forth. I would just
like to ask one or two questions about it. Was tbere a question
of allocatio .. as between the 8trategic Air COllllllll.nd and Tactical
Air Group with reapet to tbe materials tba t woull eo :l.nto

<ll46
tactical weapons?
A Yes, but I believe it wouldtake a little further
discussion to make clear just what was -.nt by that I am not
• exactly sure ai
classif:ied inf.ormatim.
this point whether one 4oes not pt into
I think it could be answered without
getting into classified information but if there is saneone

here 'lllhom I could consult on that point
Q I am not going to ask you any questions of that
character. I wouldlike to have your judgment as fairly as

you can express it without going into classified materials as
to whether the recommendations of this chapter on atomic energy
would have affected the hydr9Sen bomb prcsram then under way,
• whatever its nature may have been.

A I know of no way in which it would have affected that.
Q Was there any purpose to affect that program in any
way?
A I am not even sure I undersand the question.
Q I am not sure I do either. Wbat I am trying to bring

out is was this question of allocatim related :tD any way to the
thermonuclear work tbat was going forward?

A Not that I know of •
• Q It was a 111tstion d the allocation of then existing

fission materials?
A Could I say a word about what the purpOBe of this
section of the report was, because otherwise I think it is not
l1lJ 32835 Docld:36£792 Pa9e 162

'!147
even clear what you would like • to answer.
r I don't want you to answer a111thing except what you
• know.
- --- A I wont.
...-~="'""""""-'=""""'""'""-""-'--....:---~-~-~,~~~·~
investipte methods of tactical warfare,

purpoee of the Vista Project
partic_ul~lJ'.
wa;
_a.. ~
to
,.,- '
pertained to the problem of Western Europe./..;~e felt that one of

._.~ .. --.-""·... --~-
1
'1
the imp~tant ft.JS in w~h our strength in Western Eui•ope
could be bolstered at that time, and in fact one of the

J.
·' things that could really-be brought to bear on the problem of
I
'1 keeping ta Russians out of Western Europe was the tactical
1 employment of atomic weapons. We felt at tb&t time that we I
:e ~
I
had a sufficient stockpile~ atol!lic weapons that
l utilization in this field was both possible and.appropriate

1 \
and that it would be a great advantace to our military strength
'
' to do this. So recolllll8n~tioas were made in this direction, ~
that tbe tactical UH of atomic weapons be developed and
increased,aad that a potential in 1his direction be built up.
On the queation of allocation of weapona to tactical
use, I think that 12lis is apt to be somewhat misleacli:g because \
there existed, or waa about to exist -- I am not quite sure ~
• of the time scale -- means by 111lch the easential components of p
the bomb could be a de available for one type or another

....~.....- ,
qu':l"tll-rftdily.
_, .... ,.....,= ..... "'~ _,. ,~ ..... .....J.::;..:.~'!!l.::JL.._--~~~..#-_..!:_
I don• t believe that is claasified.
..s..H,~..._o;c .. ,
·"' ·-·-
/
,.-
MR. ROLAM>ER: I think that i• all right.
Br MR. GARllISON:
ll1f 3283~ Docid:36•792 Page 163

"14!!
Q Would you say a word about Dr. Oppenheimer's

contribution to the results of this report?
• A
I recall correctly.
Q
The Vista Project was started in April 1951, if
Is that correct?
I think tba t is r igbt •
A Is that a correct date?

MR., R<EB: I think so.
THE WITNESS: ! believe i t is correct. It continued
through the ~ullllller.
rm. ROBB: That is right.
THE- wxnmss: Xt was started in April 1951. It.
c~~t~~~!'1"";!1:~.~h,_t~, ~~~1~d, ~ -~~~~-'·~; ~~i~~-- ;· WlllS -~

• (Chairman, or at loast I was responsible for the g:-oup, was
l:,ormed for the employlll8nt of atomic
~ -~4C!-9 Z · IZ::S:::•iC-.. ,
w~apon~~he-~~h~~ ;~:;l:
qr_:"~'--
/
who worked with this group we~e Dr. Lauritsen and Dr.. Christie.
Dr. Thorndyke from the Broo~veu Lal:>ora:bry wa:. thoi·e during
lllOllt months of th"' summer. Dr. Ifay;rorth from the Brooi!t!lavou

Laboratory was tbore for a period of a week er so, ~ud
a few other people helped ua from time to time during that
period. Durinc the summer we got a good many of our ideas
• in line and durinc the fall started to formulate these so that

we could write a report.
I think that by fall llBICh of the backg1111und inforll'.!t-

tion was beginning to be clear, and any of 'i>ur ideas -re
becim*1g to be a little clearer. It was •ery difficult to
lllf 3283~ Docid:36•792 Page 16•

2149
formulate these ideas because all of the ~oints we wished to

reco1m1end were interrelated and we foundourselves in difficulty.
•
I think it.was abcut this ti•, I don't remember the
date, OCtober or Nwember, that we were fortumm to get Dr.
Oppenheimr to come and spend a week or ten da711 with us. Be
was very helpful to us in formulating tbese ideas. I think
that we had a first draft of the report actually written

down at that tu., but it was not in very good form. After
two lllOl"e days of discusaion with him, he bad some ideas of
bow the•• things could be better formulated, and helped very

much in bringing them to a focus.
Subsequently thiB draft then went through several
• revisions. I don't even i:emember how -ny. It was finally

revised in late december of that year and the final report,
I think, appt ared or was proposed llhortly alter Christmas.
Q Dr. Bacher, you are familiar wi1h the Commission's
letter of December 23, 1953, to Dr. Oppenheimer initiatiq

these proceeding&?
A I have read it.
Q Apart from the allegation or tbe reports nbout the

B bomb, did the rest of it come to you as a surprise?
• To put it another way, how much, if any, of the

matters in this letter apart from the B bomb would you say
you bad been over previously at the time of the 1947 clearance?
A It is, of course, hard to give a categorical answer
lil.'f 32835 Docid:364792 Page 165

------.- ~~~
~150
to a question like that, but I didn't find any parts of it
that seeMd surprising to me.. in vi- of tbe things I had read
• before.
A
Bol!I well do JOU f-1 that JOU know Dr. Oppenheimer?
I feel I know him very well. I have worked very
closely with him du:lng the war, have seen him frequently since
the war, and feel I know him really very well. I justdon't
think it would be possible to work with a man as closely as I
worked with Dr. Oppenheimer during the war without !mowing him
very well.
Q What is your opinion as to hill loyalty to the United
• States?
Q
I lave no question at all of his loyalty.
OD what do you base that? Ia that purely a subjective
judgment?
A I think opinions of that sort are alwap subjective
ju~nts. In this case I put ll'•at credence in my own
judpent, natually, because I know him very well. But this
1s essentially an assessmant on my part based on knowing him
•or a ll'eat many years. I lave the ll'•atest confidence in his
•
loyalty .
What would you say as to his sense of discretion in
the use that ·11e would make of the knowledp that bas come to
him and will contin~to come t9 bim '8•umilll' tlm.t be continues
in irovermnent work?
IRf 3283!i Docid:36-1792 Page 166 .:

2151
A I found Dr. Oppenheimer to be very discreet. I can

re-mber during tbe war once when we bad to Co out on a trip
•
together and it was essential tbat be carr7 a memorandum,
tbat evm in note fora ~ claaaifieci, and be T11U1 ao careful
and be pinned it in his hip pocket. I thousht here ill a m.n
who really ia very careful about these things. .But to say
more generall7 as to hill discretion, I bave alwa,. found Dr.
Oppenheimer to be very discreet in hi• bandling of classified
information.
Q ts there anythins else you care to say to this
Board about his character aa a man and as a citizen?
A I have tbe highest confidence in Dr. Oppenhe:Li.r •
• I consil er him to be a person of high character.

him to be a man of discreticm, a good securit7 risk and a
I consider
parson of . full loyalty to the country.

llR. GABRISON: That is all, llr. Chairman;
CROSS EXAUIRATlOJr'
BY llR. R<JlB:
Q Dr. Bacher, you were asked bf llr. Garr:laon what you
knew about Dr. OppenbeilEr's political views at tbe tia you
were in Loa Ala-, and you ararered, l beli.Ve,tlu!.t you knew
• him to be a Democrat.
Did 7ou know anything alD ut hill interest mother
political philosophies?
A As I think l answered Jlr. Garrison, too, - didn't
1111 3283~ Docid:36•792 Page 167

215Z
have very 1a1ch time to discuss politics at Lclll Alamc>s.
Q Whether you discussed it ar not, d:ld ycu knC>W?
• A Hot much. I bad bem aware of the fact tba t he lllad
leftlsh syapathl- before the war, but I didn't really know
very much abQu-'t it, and I didn't dlacuss it with him.
Q Did you ever state to a.nyone that you knew that
between 1934 and 1942, Dr. Oppenheimer becam interested in
varlom poll tlcal philosophies and was lnterffted as many
others were at the time in tbe exper:l.nent belzg conducted
by the Sov:ia t Government in Russia?
A I don• t know., but it sounds as if I lllight have.
• Q
A·
Did you know that?
Tbat ls a difficult question to answer, because I
amnot exactly sure what it would take to know that. I was aware
that this was c~nly d1801 ssed.
MR. Ree&: 11r. Chairman, there ls 1n the file before
the Board a memorandWll to the files, dated Jlarch 14, 1947,

. .
the subject ls stated to be • a study of a report on J •.
Robert Oppenheimer, or an analysis of. a report on J. Robert
Oppenheimer. liluch of this analysis has to do with FBI reports
•
which I am not allowed to dlacuss or disclose here •
llR. GARltISON: This ls an analysis by whom?
llR. RCJm: It is not signed, llr. Garrison, strmgely

I
enough. But it ls 1n the ABC files under that date.
'
llR. GARRISON: Is that a document used in connection
lllf 3283~ Docld:364792 Page 16~

2153
with the clearance discussions?

MR. RCBB: I assUJllS it -s. I don't know. It 1s
•
1111.rch 14, 1947 •
MR. GARRISON: An unsigned document?
MR. RCBB: That ls correct.

MR. GRAY: It ls OD AEC eta uo-ry?
BIR. GARRISON: Are you going to read portions
of that to Dr. Ba.cUl-?
llR. RCllB: Yes, sir. llr. Chairman, as I say, I am
not permitted to read those portions which reflect FBI reports.
I would like, however, to read a certain portion which does
not nec888ar1ly involve such reports, and wherein some minor
• instances there are some references --

MR. GARRISON:
MR. RCllB:
I - sorry. I did not hear that.
I would like to read certain portions
which do not involve reference to FBI reports. In some
instances where there ls reference to PBl reports, I would
like to delete or paraphrase, so as not to get into FBI reports.
I wish the Board would follow me so I am not distortlqr.
MR. GARRISON: Mr. Chairman, 1• th'ere anythlnc to
show that this may not be simply a kind of memorandum
• exchanged between security officers?
t•, file.
MR. aam: I dodt know what it 1.s. It is a memorandum
llR. GRAY: There ls not anythinc to show the authorship
3283l Docid:364792 Page 169

2154
of this report.
MR. GAIUllSON: I am a little troubled about reading
• into the record -tter frClll a document whose purpose, '.nature

origin, autbenticit7, we lave no kuowledp at all.
MR. Ram: Could 7ou -nt tbe Board to consi4er it
_without )'Dur hearing it?
YR. GARRIS(l(: I would like to hear everything that
the Boa.rd considers. I know that to be beyond the possibilities,
greatl7 as I regret it.

• MR. Ram: May I piooceed, llr. Chairman. lam reading
from page 4 of this -..-audua, starting at tlle bottom --
• ''It is known"
read first
JIR. GARRISON:· f.lr. Chairma.n, could we have this
off the record to see what we can m&ke of it , an d

then see if it belonp in apart of the record which
conceivably one day may become public? I am not saying that
there is any plan to make it public, but this is a record
of some historic character, and I think --

YR. GRAY: I would like to ask Mr. Robb whether this
is 101.Dg to be the basis of a question to Dr. Bacher?
•
YR. Ram: I think it relates to Dr. Bacher's
testimony, and I want to put some questions to him about this.
MR. GARRISON: Does it relate to him personally?
YR. ROBB: Not at all.·
JIR. GARRIS(J(: WhJ' caa 't you put yaur quest.ion without
lllf 3283~ Docid:36•792 Pave 170

2155-2156
reading it from an unknown document?

&. RceB: Because I am conductinc this questioning
•
and I would like to do it in m,y own way •
MR. GARRISON: I am conductinc '1111 question to the
Chair.
MR. aces: You asked me and I ans-red it.
MR. GRAT: Where is that?
MR. ROOS: Start:•.ng at pace 4 of the report, at the
bottom of the page, the next to the last paragraph.
MR. GRAT: And bow much?
MR. RceB: Reading from there tbroucb the first full
paragraph on page 6 •
• MR. GRAT: I am going to allow counsel to mad 1;bese
portions be baa indicated.

MR. Ram: Mr. Cha:lman, may I suggest that there are
certain minor references in here to FBI reports which we are

not permitted to disclose \llhicb is why I was goinc to undertake
to read it to give counael the benefit of it with those
references deleted.
This Board, as I understand it, is to base its
decision in this matter upon the whole file before it. If
• counsel aloes not want to bear this, and wants the Board to go
ahead and consider it without him la aring it, that is all right
with me.
llR. GARRISON: Mr. Chairman, what I object to is

2157
readiDC into tbe record what I take to 1:8 alleptiom about
Dr. Oppenheimer'• p-t which are unsupported b)' an7thing
• approaching a sicnature, without &DJ' knowledp of the use

to which thia waa put, or the aource of it, without any possible
- n • of our knawiug what it is going to say. It seeme to
me to read an anonJ'lllOU• allegation of tbat kind about Dr.
Oppenheimer into the record --

llR. GRAY: I don't believe that the portion that
Jlr. Robb propmea to read makes allegations with respect to
Dr. Oppenheimer. Am I cm'rect?
14R. RCllB: It concerns certain individuals -ployed
• on tbe project. I apprehe!l1d tlat thi•

Bacher at one time or another.
14R. GRAY:
report waa before Dr .
This report clearly came out of tie

Atomic Bnern Conmisaion files. As Mr. Robb said, I think it
is safe1D assum that even though Dr. Bacher may not re-bar
-•inc this particular document, that at oue time he certainly
bad seen it in connection with the clearance procedures involved.
llR. GARRISON: Mr. ChaiZ'llll.D, if this was a part al
the material which Dr. Bacher went over, wh7 can't it be shown
•
to him now, and then questions put th him about individuals,
r~tber than reading this into the record. Tbere certainly
•Jan be no objection to a fOl'IUr member of tbe Commission
readine solllthing from the C~asion'• filea, - I understand
it, particularly if he has already read them in the past.
ll1f 32835 Docid:364792 Page 172

2158
llR. Ram: I certainly 90Uld not expect Dr. Bacher
to remeaber this offhand.
•
llR. GABRISOJ: Why can't you abow it? Mr. Chairman,
wouldn't tba t be tlut appropriate procedure to let Dr. Bacb er

look at this, and then if cou11&el wants to ask him queatiom
about particular individuals, he can.
llR.. Ram: Jlr • Chair•n, I want to allk Dr • Bacher
quest iona about this •morandum. I tllink the record oug~ to

reflect what it ia before I start to ask hi.Ill questions about it.
llR. GRAY: I think I shall have to talk with m:v
colleagues on the Board. I understand you are objecting to
the reading •
• llR. GARRISON: Yes, sir. I don't object if it ia
shown to Dr. Bacher so he 1181 read it, and then queationa put
to hi.Ill about particular individuals, whatever questions that
counael wan.ta to ask. I just have thia f-liDS that to
read into the record these anon)'lllOlls paaaages about particular
people is not sound procedure.
llR. R<Jm: Of course, Ill'. Chair-.n, I cadt quite
follow m:v friend becauae this report is. before the Board in
its entirety. I can't •-why putting a portion in the
• record see• to be such a horrible step to take.

thine that will happen if I read this is that couuael will
iret to hear it.
The only
llR. GARRISON: It also will beco• a part of the
RV 3283~ Docid:364792 Pa'e 173

2159
transcript, which •Y becmm a permanent record.

llR. Ram: I assu- tbese files are a public record.
• MR. GAllR!S<»J:
MR. Rema:
llR. GRAY:
It •Y becom public •
It won't beco• public through us.
I think it is not unreasonable to
assum that same time this transcript •Y becom a public
record. I would hope not, but I think we can make no guarantees
I would like to have a consultation 'llU:h my colleagues on the
Board. I think we will just move into the otber room briefly
so we won't have to send all of you out of the room.
(The Board wt thdr-.)
-. (The Board re-ntered the room.)

Jiil. GRAY: Arter conferring with my colleagues on
the Board, I am going to suggest that Mr. Robb show this

document to Dr. Bacher,. and if he wishes to point out
particularly the paragraphs which be is now concerned 'With
and then to ask him to question Dr. Bacher on the basis of
these paragraphs without reading them into the record.
MR. R<ma: Mr. Rolander, is it all right fer Dr.
Bacher to make references to FBI?
1•
lllR. RQLAHDER: Yes, but Dr. Bacher should not refer
to references in discussion.
llR, Rema: May we take time out 1111.le he readll it?
llR, GRAY: Yes.
YR. Rema: May we proceed?
1111 3283S Docld:36•792 Page 17•

2160
llll. GRAY: Yes.

BY llll. R<Jm:
c Dr. Bacher, you have read tile paragraph& in that
• anal:rai• to which I referred you?

A Yes.
Q Doctor, 1f tile statements made in this anal:rai•
about Charlotte Serber are fact, would ycu hml bad her on
the prc;aect at Los Alamos?
A Could I see this thine asain to refer to?
Q Yes, sir. (Randing) •
llR. GAJlRISCfi: Jlr. Chairan, I would like to note
for the record tbat Dr. Bacher'• answer to that question,
• whether. he answers :re• or no, scarcely seem to - to be

relevant to the abject of this inquiry for it has absolutely
no bearinc on the question of whether Dr.,Oppenbeimer knn

those facts to be true or not, whatever these facts •Y be.
This 1s a question in the cark about the witness' opinion lbout
something not in the record about some member of the project.
I fear that the inference whi:h the question may wish to have
drawn 1s that if the witness'allllWera the question in the
'negative somehow that will be taken as directed to Dr.
• Oppenhei•r. It just see- not to belong in the recc:rd, but
I don't -nt to - • to be argumentative about this, but I

do put it to the Chairman very seriously.
llR. GRAY: Your observation about it is 1n the
1111 32835 Docld:36•792 Page 175

3161
record, and I - certain the Board will tallB into account
all of the circumstances, including tbe nature of tbe
•
-maraudum under diacwsaion, and the related -ttera you
pointed out about it.
TBB WITKISS: ·. !!>Uld you rep•t the quution?
(Question read by the reporter.)
TRI WITNISS: ID order to &D8111'er that queation, Ill'.
Robb, I think it 1a neceau.ry to go back and -ke a bit of a
statement about what the baaia for aecurity clearance waa at
Loa Alamos.
We aa technical people at Loa AJ&l'Oll did not pat

ouraelv. . in the position in &DJ' caae of Dakins a judpient aa
to whetber acientific people should or should not be a •mber ~
the project. Thia was a question which waa left up to the

security officers. l'or example, to take the case of Philip
Morrison -- l bappen to re•mber tbis, and it is referred to
in the aame documant which you bave juat asked • to look at
in hi• case be was a-member of the •tallurgical laboratory
at the Univeraity of Chicago. Some tia in the •~r d 1944
I waa on a recruitiuc trip for the Loa Alalll08 Laboratory.

We were uaperately tryiq to pt people ~rom other sectiom
• of the project to help us 1D the work out there.

the •tallurgical laboratory, I -nt to the SAii laboratoriea
in •-York, and if I recall correctly, I -nt also to Ciak
I -nt to
Ridp. At each of these places I talked to people and
l1W 32835 Docid:364792 Page 176

3162
approached them with reference to coming to Loll Alamos. Finall

after fiuding that acne of .the p~ple whom I had initially
•
approached were unavailable for security reasons at Loll
Alamos, I.took the. precaution of not talking to people until
I cleared it with the security officer. In other worcla, :It
was clear from this that the responsibility for as fo wbo
•
came to Los Alamos was held with the security office and not
with the scientific director or any member of the scientific
staff.
In the case of Philip Morrison I interviewed him
in Chicago. Subsequently, if I recall correctly, a question
•
was raised as to whether it was advisable for him to come to
LoB Alamoa. We pointed out that he was a very able an, would
help us more in our work out there than most of the other
people that we mteht get, and after ••view somewhere, it was
decided that he would come i:o Los Alamos and he did, and -de
a nlllllber of valuable contribtions to the project.
I think this is only to indicate that judpent as
to what had to be t•en for fact in the- matters and the

decision as to what ought to be done on that was something
which was 1n the hand& of the security officer at Loll Alamos •
• Q
BY MR. aam:
May I interpose, since we digressed a little bit,
you have here, have you not, given a judgment CD Dr. Oppen-
heimer as a security matter?
Rff 32835 Docid: 36,1792 Pa9e 177

2163
A I bave 1iven 111J personal opinion.
Q Yes, air. Would you 1ive tbat same personal opinion
• in respect of Charlotte Serber, a88uming tbat the atate-nts

you ba w read about her in 1his memorandum are true?
A I will say this. I don't think Dr. Oppenbeimer would
not bave bad her at Los Alamos if he did not think she was
reliable.
Q Would you please answer the question? I am aakiDI
for your opinion.
A I believe I would bave relied vn the security officer
to -ke a decision on this.
•
Q Suppose the aecuri ty officer told yai the fac~a
set out in this -orandua, and asked you for your opinion
as to whether she should be there or whether she should noi,
wbat would you bave done?
A In any aecurity case, there are lots of acts and
these -.y only be a part of the facts. A security j udc-nt ,
as I understand it, is as a matter of balancing one thins
against another.
r In other words, you don't think you are qualified
to 1ive an opinion?
• A
P
I do think I am qualified to give an opinion.
Would you sive one on Cbarlotte Serber?
A In answer to tbat question, I think you need all
the facts and not just wbat you bave 1iven ...
. NW 3283~ Docid:364792 Page 178

2164
Q Aaawunc . that tm se tac ta wre p ven to you, do you

think that takiDC thoee tacts as .._ta that sbe had &DJ'.
busineas on that project?
• A It seems to • that tbeae are not neceaearilJ' tacta.

They are ata ted in tbs :form of it aa an opinion.
Q I - asking you to • • • - tbat they are :facts.

A Could I read them acain, please?
Q Yea.
llR. GRAY: I 'Dld BAJ' that the witnesa does not
have to usume they are tacts, but tor the purpoae of a quea-
tiOD only J'OU ...,., This is DOt to get J'OU OD recard.
llR. a<BB: No, I am not asking you to aay they are
• tacts. I am _111.,.
of security atandarda.
TBB WITllESS:
tryinc to explore tbs witnesa' criteria
Mr. Chairman, as you can - from lllJ'

answers, I am a little reluctant to anawer hypothetical
queatiom.
MR. GAJUlISON: I think, llr. Chairman, that when
counael put the question to Dr. Bacher, I thoucht he was makinc
a compariaon or parallel between that question to Dr. Bacher
about llrs. Serber, and tbs question I put to Dr. Bacher about
• his opinion of Dr. Oppenheimer. Quite clearly his opinion

about Dz'. Oppenbei-r is based on ... DJ' long years of intim.te
association in eov•r-nt work, and I think to analocise
tba t to an opinion about Mrs. Berber based en a hypothetical
llV 3283~ Docid:364792 Page 179

2165
set of facts 1B quite aisleadi111r.

Jill, ROBB: I don't think the Doctor i• misled. Have
• you now read tbat apin, Doctar?

TBE WITJIESS: I have DOW read it a1r&iD.
I think, Ill'. Robb, that. there is a great difference
between assuming that is a fact, and imceeding on the basis.
I think the real question co•• up as to whether tbat is a

fact or not.
BY Jill, ROBB:
Q Aasu•tbat you knew tbat these state•nts -re the
truth about Ill's. Serber, would you then be of the opinion that
•
sba should be cleared for service on a secret war project auch
as Lea Ala-?
A In the case that all those facts are correct
as stated, and werecurrent at the time, I would aay no.
Q Yes, sir. What was llrs. Serber's job down there?
YR. GARRISON: Mr. Chairman, please believe m, I
am not trying to delay or obstruct. I think abce - now have
bad put to the witness questions about these facts, those
facts now ought to go in the record. I hoped when counsel
had shown this document to Mr. Bacher that the course of
• questioning would have followed a different line.

record aa it DOW
But th41
reads is absolutely blind and incapable Of
evalution by ua. While I had hoped to avoid this kind of
reading of this raw undigested anonymous material into the
1111 32835 Docld:364792 Page 180

2168
record I now - no recourse but to have it do119, because

otberwiM the transcript 1s left 1D a -nincl..• state of
affair•. I think it better go 1D. I am sorry it ha.a taken
• this turn. But I didn't auppoae that the questioaa would brine
about that result.
MR. ROBB: I am perfectly -tisfied with the recDrd
as i t stands, Jlr. Chairman. Ur. Garri&on didn't want1t read.
--
I wanted to read it. I foresaw exactly what would happen.
How he wants it read.
MR. 41AJUllS<lf: Ill'. Chairman, I really think it
should iro in. I have thouirht from tbe arirument that the
question d. couDMl - l d put would be of an entirely different
• cateiror1 than to - y asaUlliair tbsae factll to be true, what

would your opinion have been.
tbs facts 1n tbs record.
I think - now
I would like to have tbsm read
ou~ht to have
into the reCQl'd so we know what - are talkinir about.

D. GRAY: The Chair propcaes to augireat that the••
parairraphs be read into tbs record, but first I muld like

to know whether either of my colleapes f-1 that is not a
proper procedure.
DR. EVA.HS: It 1s all riirht. I~ llr. Garrison wishes
• to have it r-.d, it i• all riirht with me •

MR. GAUismr: I do think the end r ..ult is an
objectionable one, but. it is l e - objectionable now to have
it in than to leave it blank.
/ IHf 3283~ Doc Id: 364179'2 Page 181

2187
JIB. BOBB: llr. Cbairman, I am a little bit oonfuecl.
Am I to read juat tbe section dealins With the Serbera, or
• all tbe parasrapu I bave in mind?

llB. GABBIS01':
llB. ROBB:
I would just do tm Berber one.
All riaht I Will bave t> leave out
certain portions.
JIB. GABBlsar: would you i:Dclioate wbere tbe portiom
.are left.out?
aomethins -- "tbat llllject n.a remponsiblit tor tbe -plorment

on the project at Los Al•..,. ot a nmiber otp... ona" -- I left
•
out a word -- "known to be eitber Coliauniatll or active
Comwiiniat aympa.thiaera" - om1saiom·- "Bobert and Charlotte
Serber. 'l'ith r-pect to the persona •ntioned above, it ia
known the Cbarlotte Berber• s taailJ' i• prominent in Co•nnli•t
Par~ ranks in Philadelphia, PenDSFlvania; tbat •be beraelt
wu probably a Par~ member aDcl po•ibly a •llber ot the
Comintern, and tb&t abe baa alwa:ra been active in radical
activiti• and front orirani•tiom wherever •he ba8 lived.
Ber buabancl, Robert Berber, perbapa under her influence, ba8
been active in tbe aa- c:lrclea since he mrried her, althOush
• tbere is no conclusive evid_. tbat be ia a

Robert Serber" -- blank, blank -
Par~ -llber.
''Were sruuate student• of
the Univeraity ot California under subject." -- blank,
omiasiona. "It is known that all of tlleai" referrins·to
'l1lf •3283.!i .Docid:3.6.792 ~age .1_8~

2168
certain other persons and the Berbers -- ·•perhaps influenced
by subject were eztremely active in Communist activities on the

campus at Berkeley during thill time. After finishing their
• studies all" -- blank -- "of the . .n went to tbe University

cd Illinois wbere tl97 are also known to bave aesoclated
with known Communists, and to bave taken part in COllllllunillt
activities. When the Jlanbattan Project ca- into being, the
Serbers were eJll)loyed at Los Al•mos by subject" -- omissions
"all of these people were very close personally to subject
and there 111 little room to doubt tbat he was aware of their
sympathies and activities. In evaluating thill information, it
must be kept in mind that both"-- blank -- ·• and 8erber were
• technically very well qualified for the 'lfOrk for which subject
wanted them, despite their youth.·•
I think that is all on Serber.

MR. GRAY: Just one other place. After a blll.nk,
"Serber, too, ill highly regarded."

YR, R<BB: Yes. "8erber, too, ls b.ighly regarded."
llR. GRAY: I think the record should show that this

without omissions tbat are important to this discussion
represents excerpts from a memorandum in the Atomic Energy
• CoDRission files on Atomic Energy COllllllisslon stationery,

entitled, "Memorandum to files.
Report on J. Robert Oppenhel-r."
Subject: Analysis of
Qnslgned, and da~ed Macch 14
1947, and with no identification as to its author.
lllf 3283~ Docid:364792 Pave 183

2189"
Ila. GAJUllSmr: llr. Chair•n, •:V I now point out what
..... to be tlle vice in this •tter of usinc u a hypothetical
• caae to Dr. Bacher I have no objection to putting

hypothetical cu- to him to ••• bow his mind works on these
thinp -- but her• are some people called Berber. All we
know on the record is that Dr. Serber was cl-red by a
d1stinsu1shed panel of which Adlliral BilDitz was Chair•n, and
'cleared by the Atomic Energy COJlllli.. ion itself:l:>r top secret
Q cl-.rance. Pr•umably this aaterial was taken into account.
It is certainly clear !rom the Commission's criteria
tllat ia evaluating Professor Berber'• qualirications, his
•
wife's background must also have been taken into account. Here
now are two people that I don't know fram Adam, but it see•
to • most unfair to use them u a framework for a hypothetical
question. A docuaant of this kind, anoD)'lllOUll and full of
blanks, in the cue of people who Jave been cleared by Admiral
Bimita·and llr. Neyland and .General .Joyce, and by the
Commission itself. Tom it serves no purpose in proceeding and
is - t unfair to all concerned. It l•ves the inference in

tbe record that in spite of the subsequent cl•rance of tbe
Berbers that --
• D. ams: Of tbe who?
llR. GAJUllSCli: If Dr. Oppenheimer ever sees them at all

it:lt SOll8thing very wroq. This is a backhanded accusation
api11Bt the Berbers in this record -- I anotdefending them
:
l~ 3283~ Docid:36t792 Page lBt
2170
at all -- but I - questioning the validi1;)'of this procedure.

I would 111pecifically request the chairan that hypothetical
. I
\
cases to Dr. Bacher be put in the form of X or what have you,
• and not na•• of people to be used for •terial of this

character.
llR. RCl!B: Mr. Chairman, llr. Garrison keeps arpiq
about the clearance of the Serbera. So far as I know, llra.
Serber ha• never been cleared by the Atomic Ener17 Commission
but abe - s -ployed at Los Alamoe as a librarian. She had
access to all the classified inform.tion that - • there. lly
questions to Dr. Bacber were directed at his opinion of llra.

Berber. I r-d the -tter about llr. Serber just because I felt
• sure i f I didn't r-d it all, llr. Garrison would say I should

have read it all.
Serber yet.
I have not asked him anything about llr.
Uay I proceed, llr. Chairman.
llR. GRAY: I think the witness has already am-red
the question.
MR. RCllB: Yes.
BY MR. acme:
Q Doctor, do you knowwhat evidence milht have been
presented to tbe Board which cl-red Dr. Serber?
• A
r
No, I - • not present.
May I ask you, Doctor, do you recall 111hether or not
in 1947 the co-ission had it• security officer prepare some
analysis of the FBI reports in tbe file for you?
llR. GARRISON: Which file is this, Dr. Oppenheimer's
HW 32835 Docid:364792 Page 185

2171
file?
JIR, RCBB: Y•.
•
TBB WITJIBSS: Ill'. Robb, I r•Mmber readintr a euwry
but I don't believe I reaallber aDTthintr tbat would allow me

to ans-r your question either in tbe affir•tive or negative.
BY JIR, RCBB:
Q I notice here in Ill'. Jone•' memorandum to tb4 file
which refer• to entries whicb ie March 10, 19"7, tbe la.et
pace of th&t contain• this notatio~, "The result• of the
diacuaaion with Ill'. Clifford 1"t1'e reported to the COllllllieeion
at a -tintr at 5 p.m. tbis afternoon." 'l'h&t would be llarcb ll
llR. GARRIS<lf: Is thie the docu•nt read into tm
• record before?
llR. Ram: Yes, eir. "At tbat ·-.ting the General
llanarrer reported tba t a detailed an&lJ'Sie of tbe FBI •""!""rY
wae in procese of preparation by the co-iseion •s security
st&ff, as an aid to evaluation."

BY JIR, R<BB:
C' Assmiinrr such .,,_.r;v wu-de, no doubt you h&d it
before you?
A It sounds so, but I don't remuber it, Kr. Robb •
• Q I was not there, but lllJ' tbougbt is that probably

tbis paper tbat I sbowed you which purpa:rta to be an an&lJ'Sie
of tbe report on Dr. Oppenheimer was tbe an&lJ'SiB referred to
in tbat note of llarcb 11.

2172
A I am afraid I can ' t help you on tba t.
llr. Chair-n, could I nake an observatloD on this
laat discussion?
• llll. GRAY:
TBB WIT.NESS:
You certainly •7·
In view of the fact now that this
has bHn read into the record, I tried in my a1111-r to you
about llrs. Serber on the hypothetical question to -ke it
clear that if tbat information wa11 (a) fact, and (b) current,
that the answer I gave then applied. I think the qu•tim
tbat I bad in 117 mind, and the reason I found it so difficult
to answer the hypothetical question which you posed was tbat
. I would ass- that the Board and also the C-isaion in
• reviewing a caae did not believe tbat was either (a) fact,
or (b) current.
-king a decision.
I think these are the pertinent questions in
•
BY MR. aam:
Q Are you talking about the Com:lllaion or the Board
considering Dr. Oppenheimer's case?
A No, I am talking about the Serber case, which is
the question you asked me about.
Q Of course, llr. Serber's case -·distinct from
• that of Ill's. S.rber.
it, I will aak you tll.i11:

lly cpestion related to 111'11. Serber, and
per.._pe to make it perfectly clear whet• I am setting at
If you bad that data before you in
1942 and 1913, and bad to -ke a decisim as to whether llr11.
1111 3283~ Docld:36t792 Page 187 ·

2173
Serber would co• to Los AllllDOs, would you have deci•ed that
she should com or that sbe should not co-?
• A Once apin 111¥ answer to you would be tbat I would

leave that to a full investip.tion by security officers under
those circu-tances, because this does not COll8titute a full
record.
Q But assu- that the investipticm diacloHd tb&t
those state•nts were true, and you then bad to m.ke the
decision, wb&t would it have been?
A I uid if:• they nre true facts and nre current,
that is, applied as of tla&t dq, wbicb is not clear, J migbt
add, from tbe record you b&ve read, then"J would say no •
• you.
llR. RCBB: J tbink tbat a-nrs
That is all I b&ve to ask.
IQ' question. Thank
MR. GRAY: Dr. Evans.
llR. EVANS: Dr. Bacher, did you have a sraduate stucle1
at your school by the na• of Sheehan in tbe last two years?

THE WJTimSS: It could be, but I don't recall hi•
in physics.
-
........ .....
DR. BVAJIS:
a lot of pbysics.
lfe was a chemistry student, but be took
lfe was one of IQ' students,. and. J just
• wonciered if you knew bim.

TBE WITNBSS: I did not know hia-.
DR. BVAE : Dr. Bacher , you have never been a
Coimunist?
llW 32835 Docid:364792 Page 188

2174
TBB WITNESS: No.

DR. EVAim: Never been a fellow traveler?
•
TBB WJ'l'DSS: No •
DR. EVAIJs: B&ve JOU beloupcl to &nJ of thoee
subversive orpnisatiou that the AttorneJ General l:lllted?
TBB WITDSS: Aa far aa I know I beve never beloupcl
•to &DJ orpnization tbat ill on the AttorneJ General •s list.

DR. EVANS: Do JOU think that a •n can be completelJ
lOJ&l to hia aauntrJ and still be a security risk?
TBE WITMESS: Yee. If b8 18 a drunkard, he miCht be
a security risk and be completelJ loyal.
DR. EVANS: Just s11ppose because of h:i.s associates •
• TBB WJTDSS: It ne• to -

of association that is a different question.
tbat OD thi• question
If JOU have
full confidence in a 11&11's character and hia intecrity and
his discretion, I don't believe that one can rule him out as a
aecuritJ riak on the basis of hi• knowing people wbo bave m
tbe past bad connection witb the Ce>mmUnilltPartJ, 110BtlJ
because I don't believe tberw would be •DJ people left in
the United States that would zatisfJ tbat criterion.·
DR. EVANS: Tben JOU are anawerinc the question tbill
• W&J. You tbink a man can be completelJ lo,.al, and if be ill

-C0&11PletelJ lOJ&l, be ill not a securitJ risk?
are &&Jing?
Is that wb&t JOU
TBB WI'DIESS: I believe I specified a little more
l1W 3283' Docid:364792 Page 189

2175
than tbat, Dr. Bvans. I said, if I recall correctly,
that if he is a person of high character, a person of integrity,
• and a person who is discreet, and is at the same t i • a person

who is clearly loyal, then he is not a aecurit)' risk,
assuming of course that other criteria such - he is not a
drunk or things of that sort are included.
BR. EVAllS: You think Dr. Oppenhei-r is always ·
discreet?
TRI WITNESS: I do.
DR. EVAllfS: Do )'OU think he was discreet when la
refused to give the name of somebody that talked to him? Do
•
JOU re-mber that Chevalier incident?
TBE WITNESS: I don't rmiember the point you refer
to, I am afraid.
DR. EVANS: Someone approached Dr. Oppenheimer
about setting security infClll'-tion, and Dr. Oppenheimer
refused to irive the name of the man that approached him.
·rs WITNESS: . I thought he did irive the DaM, Dr.
Evans.
DR. EVANS: .Be refused twice I think, and for quite
a long time he didn't !five it. Am I right on that?
• MR. R<Jm:
llR. GARRISOR:.
I believe that is correct.
That is riirht.
DR. BVA1'8: • - that d·iscreet?
'DIE WITNESS: Could )'OU ask the q-stion again, Dr.
llW 3283~ Docid:364792 Page 190

2176
Evans.
· DR. EVAllS: Yes. If ,. were on a project, and you
had acceaa to a lot of secret infor11111.tion, and I came to you
• and tol~ you that there waa soabody that knew that l could
cive intor11111.tion to if you would cive it to - . would you
have cone and told somebody tbat I bad approached you?
TBB WITNESS: I think that should have been reported.
mt. GARRISON: llr. Chair11111.n.
DR. EV.AKS: llaybe I put tbe question very badly.
MR. GARRISctt: All richt. I accept it as a
hypothetical question.
DR. EVANS: You ha9 never been approacbed by people?
• TBB WITNESS:
DR. EVAllS:
No, never •
Do you believe a man should place
loyalty to hia country before loyalty to a friend?

THE WITNESS: Yea.
DR. EVANS: Th*t is all I want to &Ilk.
MR. GRAY: Dr. Bacher, did you know -- I am not
aure whether thia waa covered in earlier testimony -- David
Hawkins?
TBB WITNESS: Yea.
• MR. GRAY: Did you know him well?

TJIE Wl'I'tlESS: I - t hi• first at Loe Alamos, llr.
Chairman, 11ben he was a -Jllber of tbat laboratory. I cannot
r•-•ber exactly when he ~ to Loe Alamos. 1 would cuesa
lftil 3283~ Docid:364792 Page 191

2177
•ome time in the last part of 1943 or early 1944. I -t
him there, kn- hi• fairly -11 at Loa Al&ao11, and have known
• him a bit sincd the war. Be lived iD W'a•hiqton for a time
and did some work, I think, at the end of the war in finishing
up a hi&tOZ'J' that he had been preparing of the Loa AlalllOll
Project. I kn- hi• a bit while he wa• here in ~'aahiqton.
I have not •een him now for some time. I believe he is in
Colorado.
MR. GRAY: At the time you kn- him at Los Alamoe
or later, did you have any intonation about his what I believe
are •oaetimea referred to - political affiliation•? Did you
•
know anything abouthis connection•?
TBB WITNESS: I did not diacu.. politic• with him.
I believe I read •o• tfftimony since that he ~ bad and I
must say I ~ very surprised at what came out in that
testimony, because I believed Hawkins and believe him today
to be a person of character, and I don't believe one who
could today subject hiDBelf to the rigid control that would
be required if he were to have the affiliations of which I
believe he was t . . tified since then.
•
MR. GRAY: I don't believe he ~ testified to any
current affiliation.
THE WITNESS: No, I - n t in the past.
MR. GRAY: You testified that you intervi~ Philip
Morrison.
llW 3283~ Docid:364792 Page 192

2178
TBE WITNESS: Yes.
llR. GRAY: With respect to his employment.,

TBE WITNESS: Yes, that is right •
• MR. GRAY:
affiliations?
THE WITNESS':
Did you know anything about his political
I didn't at that time, no.
llR. GRAY: Would it surprise you if be had bad

I0111111Unist associations or connections &11 a personal matter?
THE WITNESS: Today?
llR. GRAY: Perhaps I am not making 1111 questiOn clear.
Zy question is whetber it would surprise you today to know
tba·t he then at the tim you intervi-ed him had political
• connections which you would feel would not nake him a

security risk tod&y?
THE WITJlESS:
good
After all,. llr. Chairman, in tbe mean-

time I have read some of these things so I could not easily be
surprised by it.
MR. GRAY: Were you surprised when ym read them?
THE WITNESS: I was surprised when I found out in
that particular case.
llR. GRAY: Wben you intervi-ed people far tht
• laboratory this kind of question was not asked?
interview
THE WITNESS:
by
No, I had DO relation to that.
a scientific person was concerned entirely
Any
with the question of whether that man would be an appropriate
MW 3283~ Docid:36•792 Page 193

2179
addition to tbe laboratory on aclentlflc and technical
cround. The question of whether be came to the laboratory
•
or not was left to tbe security officer to pasa on •
llR. GRAY: That was tbe aystem you used; that
probably ls not the syatem today, is it? Everybody concerned
with the project is exp8cted to take some interest in security?
TJIB WITNESS: Yea, I would say alao at tbe t i - I
intervie-d Jlorriaon, I didn't know all)'thinc at all about his.
backcround.
llfR. GRAY: On tbe question of identification af
people and with no conclusicma to be drawn from the question,
did you know Fuchs well?
THE WITJIESS: I knew him reasonably well at Loa
Alamos, because be was a -ber of tbe Theoretical Divisio n
and d,id a certain amount of work fO!!" the Division for which I
was responsible there. I didn't know him well outside work,
but within the laboratory there I saw him fairly frequeatly.
I probably knew eight or ten members of tbe Theoretical

Division better than I knew :rucbs, and 111J knowledge of him was
entirely through the work of the project.
MR. GRAY: lie was considered to be a doing a good job?
TBB WITNESS: Be did a good job, I believe.
DR. EVANS:. ~ou were very surprised when tbat ca- out
THE WITNESS: I was certainly surprised.
DR. EVABS: You migbt have lost a little faith in
llW 3283~ Docid:364792 Pa9e 194

2180
your own judgaent of people?

TBB WITNESS: I didn't know him ver:v -11 personally,
that is, I didn't spend •n:v hours with him. I saw him mostly
• in a scientific and technical capacity. So I didn't have

an opportunity to. form a personal judgment of Fucbll very much.
Be was a very quiet, very retiring person.
llR. GRAY: Would you say, Dr. Bacher, that aside
from the security aspect,:vou were responsible for the
employment of Philip Morrison as a member of the project?
I asked that badly. You have already testified thatyou didn't
concern yourself with the security angle.
TBB WITIBSS: Yes.
• as a prospect?
llR. GRAY:
THE WITNESS:
Did Dr. Oppenheimer succest Morrison
I don't recall that he did. I think

as a •tter of fact that I intervie-d him at the metallurgical
laboratory and how I cot the list of people that I interviewed
at the metallurcical laboratory, I just don't remember. I
think it was presented by the metallurcical laboratory of
people on the project whom they thought would be helpful in

the work at Los'Alamos, and who in the emergency.they could
• manage to get along without or were Willing to get along

without.
llR. GRAY: In any event, you -re exercisinc your
own best jud1119nt in interviewing llorrison for possible
HW 3283~ Docid:364792 Pa9e 19~

•
2181
•
empl011119nt?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I think a question was raised
• about Morri•on. If I recall correctly, -
from tbe scientific and technical end.

from Loa Alamos
said be was one of the people that would be most useful to us
The question WIUI
reviewed, I don't kDowwbether by local security people or
whether in lfaahington, and llorri•on then cam to Los Al-os. J
think this waa alone about in the early fall of 1944.

Jill. GRAY: Do you have any more questio11&?
llR. GAJlllISON: . Jlay I aak one more question about
Morrison?
•
BY Jill. GARRIS <If:

Q Did JllU interview a group of young men at the
metallurgical laboratory?
A Yes.
Q And he - s ons of a group?
A Yes.
Q And in interviewing them what did you seek to find Oil
A I sought most to find out what their work had been

at the metallurgical lab, and whether they would fit into the
• work that we had to cb at Los Alamos •nd in part to find

out whetber tbey would be willing to pick up their belongings
and their families and move out to N- Mexico to undertake
work on that project.
llW 3283~ Docid:364792 Page 196

2182
lloet of the people wanted to ka'ow quite a little bit
about what the circumstances -re, because they didn't have veri
goad iaformaticm on this point, and they were unwilling to
• make a decision in tie matter until they learned a little
more about the physical surrouadiqs, and so on.
Q And bad all of these yoanc - a been cleared for work

on the metallurgical project?
A Yes.
Q Have you ever been fooled in your judgment of the
loyalty of anybody wbom you bave known as long and as intimatel3
as Dr. Oppenheimer?
A No •
• Q
A
Do you think you could be?
I doubt it.
llR. GRAY: Do you have any more questions?
llR. GARRISON: Since Dr. Evans put a hypothetical
question about the Chevalier caae, I think I would like to
read from the Colllllillsion's letter and put a question myself.

gafls
•
l1V 3283~ Docid:36~792 P4ge 197
2183
AJG-1
- pm
flsBOW BY MR. GARRISON:
Q I am reading, Dr, Bacher, from the COlllllission'a
letter of December 23, 1954, on page six which you testified
you had read, but I want to refresh your memory of it.
"It was reported that prior to March 1, 1943, pos11i-
bly three monthP prior, Peter Ivanov, Secretary at·the Soviet
Con11ulate, San Francisco, approached George Charles Eltenton
for the purpOfle otc:btnining information regarding work being
done at the Radiation Laboratorv tor the use of Soviet scientists
that George Charles Eltenton 11ubRequently requested Haakon
Chevalier_to approach you concerning this matter; that Haakon
• ' . Chevalier thereupon approached you, either directly or through
your brother, Prank Friedman Oppenheimer, in connection with
this matter; and that Haakon Chevalier finally advised George
Charles Eltenton that there was no chance whatsoever of obtain-
ing the information. It was further reported that you did not
report thiP epiflode to the appropriate authorities until 11evera 1
months after it occurrence: that when you initially discussed
thiP matter with the appropriate authorities on AulfUPt 26, 1943,
you did not identity yourself as the perPon who had been ap-
• proached, and you refused to identity Haakon Chevalier as the
individual who had lllllde the approach on behalf of George
Charles !ltenton; and that it was not until several months later,
when vou were ordered by a Fuperior to do Fo, that you so
Rtf 3283.'i .P.P.C?~d: 364 792 Page 198

2184
g2-1 identified Haakon Chevalier. It WBP further reported that
upon your return to Berkeley following your separation from
the LOfl Alaaos Project, you were visited by the Chevaliers on
several occaFions: and that your wife was in contact with
Haakon and Barbara Chevalier in 1946 and 1947."
In Dr. Op-penheiaer's anFwer at page 22, he said as
folloW11:
"I knew of no attempt to obtain secret information
at LoF AlamOP. Prior to mv going there my frBld Haakon
Chevalier with hiF wife viFited us on Eagle Hiil, probably
in early 194~. During the visit, he came ~nto the kitchen
and told me that George Eltenton had spoken to him of the
posFibilitv of transmitting technical information to Soviet
scientists. I made some strong remark to the effect that this
sounded terribly wrong to me. The discussion ended there.
Nothing in our long-standing freidnship would have led me to
believe thRt Chevalier wu1 actuallv seeking information:
and I was certain that he had no idea of the work on which I
wai;i engaged.
"It has lone been clear to me that. I should have
re~orted the incident at onc9. The events that led me to repor1
• it -- which I doubt ever would have become known without my
report -- were unconnected with it. During the summer of 1943,
Colonel t.anFdale, the I ... telligence Officer of the Manhattan
District, came to ~°" AlamoF and told me that he was worried
llW 32835 Dopid:364792 Page 199

2185
ir2-3 about the Pecurity situation in Berkeley because of the
activitieP of the Federation of Architects, Eneineers,
• Chemist• and Technicia1111. Thill recalled to my mind that
Eltenton was a -mber and probably a promoter of the PAF.X:T.
Shortly thereafter, I wa• in Berkeley and I told the security
officer that Eltenton would bear watching, When asked why,
I •aid that Eltenton had attempted, tbrouirb intermediaries, to
approach people on the project, though I mentioned neither
my•elf nor Chevalier. Later, when General Groves ureed me
to irive the details, I told him of my conversation with
Chevalier. I Ptill think of Chevalier as a friend.
•
Supposintr that the evidence here showed that
Dr. Oppenheimer'• statement about the approach by Chevalier

included a Ftatement by him to the security officers to whom
he initiated the mention of the name of Eltenton tbe fact
that Chevalier, whom he did not name, bad approached three
people; that actually Chevalier, according to Dr, Oppen-
heimer'• testimoney, approached him only; that he invented
tlwl fact that there were three people and not one; that in
hi~ diPcllflsion• with the security officers be said that
F.ltenton had a contact with the Ru••ian Consulate and that
• there was somebody that had microfilm or some other method
of getting Pecret information to Russia and that thOf'e de-
tails were alPo invention•.

Takinr. all that ·now into account, and taking further
1ftJ 3283.5 Do_~_Id: 36•792 Page 200

2186
g2-4 into account the fact that General Groves pressed Dr. Oppen-
heimer for the name of the intermediary, namely, Chevalier,
•
·that Dr. Oppenheimer said he would tell him if ordered and
General Groves said that he did not want to order him and
asked him to think it over and that later General Groves
said he must have the name and that if it were not told to
him he would have to order it, that Dr. Oppenheimer revealed
the name of his friend Chevalier to General Groves. Taking
all of that into account and assuming for the purpose of
this question that this is the record before you, would your
previous answer about your confidence in Dr. Oppenheimer's
loyalty be altered in any way in your mind?
• MR. ROBB: lllay I just enter my usual caveat to
the record as to the accuraciet1 of the hypothesis, Mr.
Chairman.
MR. GARRISON: Quite rir;ht.
MR. GRAY: That means, Dr. ·Bacher, that Mr. Robb
does not neces arily accept ---
THE WITNESS: I fully understand that.
MR, GRAY: It puzzled Dr. Bacher.
THE WITNESS: Thank you •
• MR. GRAY: This is Mr. Robb's statement for the
record and now you can proceed with the answer.
BY MR. GARRISON:
Q I say th•t is my verl!'ion of the hypothesis.
llW 3283~ Docid:364792 Page 201

---- - ------
g2-5 2187
A Would you re11tate tbe question, not the whole
hypotheeiF.
• Q Having all of this before you now, you previously
testified that on tile ba11i& of your experiences witb Dr. Oppen-
heimer, you were confident of bis loyalty to the United States
and also that you conPidered him to be a good security risk.
I ask you now, accepting what I told you to be the
case for the purpOl'le of the discuRsion, would your conviction
about the matterP that you exprepsed about bis loyalty and
hiP Pecurity be the same.
A No. I think he made a mistake in not reporting it
•
immediately, but tbiR doeP not change my judgement of Dr .
Oppenheimer.
Q When you say no, you mean by tbat---
MR. ROBB: I think be meant yes if there is any
question.
THE WITNESS: The queRtion was did it change my
opinion?
MR. GARRISON: That is correct.
THE WITNF.SS: The answer iP no. I believe Dr. Op-
penheimer made a miptake in not reporting that incident immed-
• iately, but what vou have told me and read into the record
does not change my judgement given previously.
BY MR. GARRISON:
Q Do you think that Dr. Oppenheimer would today do
RV 3283~ Docid:364792 Page 202

g2-6 2188
what he did in 1943 in this incident it the facts I have told
you are the case?
A I do not. I think he realizes he made a mistake
• on that
Q
by your statement there.
I do not want you to accept my statement.
A By the statement in the record and I believe the
same thing of my own knowledge.
DR, EVANS: That i.P, he was not particularly discreet
at that ti-.
THE WITNESS: I think this is more a question ot
judgement rather than discretion.
DR. F.VANS: Re did not have good judgement at that
• time. Bow is that?
THE WITNESS:
of judgement than discretion.
It seems to me this is more a question
DR, EVANS: I do not know the difference.
BY MR. GARRISON:
Q Was there involved in this case, Dr, Bacher, as I
put it to you any 1eakap ot information by Dr. Oppenheimer?
A No, not that I know of. The word discretion is
usually uFed in security matters with reference to someone
• saying something that might conceivably be classified where
someone can here it who is not authorized to receive the in-
formation. That is why I made that difference.
Q Would you i;ay it was the fact here that quite contrary
llW 3283.~ Docid: 364792 Page 203

2189
to the leaking of information, Dr. Oppenheimer declined to
have anything to do with even a notion of leaking information
•
and after much delay revealed finally the names of the people
above?
A Re seems to have reported the incident fully,
judging from what you read me, Tbe only queation see- to be
one of time.
llR. GARRISON: 'nlat ifl all.
MR. ROBB: That is all. l have no further question•.
MR. GRAY: I have one question and this won't take
long.
There are those in the scientific community today,
• Dr. Bacher, who think that the fact of this proceeding is
an outrage. There are 1>ome, I f!ay, would feel that way. You
have heard that view expref!sed?
THE WITNESS: I have heard that it bas been expressed.
BIR. GRAY: I do not say that is a universally held
view but there are tbm;e who bold it.
As a former member of the C0111111ission, I would like
to ask you whether you feel that this matter is. of such
serious consequences that this kind of bearing is a good thing •
• I am not talking a~out the publicity angles and the rest of it.
I mean in the interest of the government and of the individual
hin11•elf.
I will put it tbiP way: lf such a hearing had been
Hlf 32835 Docid:364792 Page 204

2190
lf2-8 had in 1947, it would not have been an outrage, would it?
THE WITKESS: I find it very difficult to answer
that que11tion, Mr. Chairman. In the first place, it is hard
• to know what one means
MR• GRAY:
by an outrage.
That is 11y characterization and I agree
that it is bad to have it in the record. I should not per-
haps exprees it this way, but to say that there are those in
the scientific COllllllunity who see abgolutely no justification
for this hearing, is that an exaggeration of a point of view
which exist11?
THE.WITNESS: It may exist. I have tried rather
bard not to talk to too many people before testifying here
• and I do not have a good view of what people think, so I
cannot answer your question really very well on that.
With rePpect to the procedures that AEC hat!! for
handling Pecurity cases, the11e,of course, were worked up
rather carefully by the Commission over a long period of time.
Our General Coururel pointed out to us that the essence of
a proper system for handling security cases was the procedure
and, therefore, the Commission in setting up the present pro-
cedure tried hard to follow as nearly as possible those pro-
• cedures which over the years have come to be recognized in
courts of law. This can't be followed fully where questions
touching on classified information and involving classified
information muPt appear. This·poses very grave difficulties.
HW .. 3283.5 . Doc Id: 364 792 Page 205

2191
g2-9 I can think of no way, for example, in which hear-
inss of the present sort could be held in public as some
people have requested. I just do not know how a thing like
• that could be done.
your question.
I am not sure that I get the flavor of
Mil. GRAY: That wasn't directly responsive, but
do you feel that having established the procedures, I suppose
while you were n member of the C0111Dission--
THE WITNF.SS: Yet1.
JIR, GRAY: '11le Commillsion having ePtablished them
and I afl11ume your having felt at the time that they were fair,
do you afl a former Commis11ioner and as a scientist and as a
• former aPFociato and a friend of Dr. Oppenheimer feel that
the CommiPsion should not have inPtituted this proceeding?
THE WITNESS: niat, Mr. Chairman, would depend on
my assessment of whether there bas been substantial new
derogatory infonnation brought to bear about Dr. Oppenheimer.
I have no seen any such in reading the set of charges that have
b-n brought up and listed by the General Jrlana11:er that -re
not know before. There may be information which I do not
have. But on the list of charges that were there, I did not
• Pee any sublltantial amount of new derogatory information •
MR. GRAY: Without in any way endorsin11: or rejecting
the information about the Hydrogen Bomb, that certainly is
new since 1947. I am speaking now of the material in the
llW_3:!835 J>ocJ:d:36.&792 Pa9e 206

2192
General Ilana ger 's letter.·
THE WITNESS: Ye11.
• J.IR. GRAY: Also, I think that it is true that there
are filel! which are in existence which were not available
to the Commission in 1947.
THE WITNESS: You see, I am not aware of that,
llr • Cha irma n •
J.IR. GRAY: Again, I am not suggesting that there is
anything that should or should not be concluded from those
files, but that is the fact.
Finally, I suppoPe the question of formal action
of clearance of nr. Oppenheimer in 1947 remains to .be a matter
• surrounded by Rome myPtery. Would counsel accept that in view
of.the fact that the reference to this action which apparently
finally waP written down in AuiruPt referred to action which
took place in February, although in fact any clearance which
may have been passed upon by the Commission must have been
done by it in March and there is some confusion. I do not
cite this as having a bearing on the ultimate queetion of
Dr. Oppenheiller'e clearance as much as having a bearing on

the propriety of these proceeding11 •
• If I seem to be making an ariiument, it is not my
intention, but I was interested actually in having your view
because, in a sense, you have been on both sides of this kind

of thing.
lllf 3283~.--llcu:Id: 3H792 :Page 207

2193
g2-ll THE WITNJo:ss: Let - see if I can a D!t-r your
question this wny: If what I read in the papers has been
correct and most of my information on this does come from
• reading neWFpapere, there seeme to be two possible ways in
which the case could be handled. Either the Commission
could have, on the occasion of the case being raised, again
recommended to the President that there be an administrative
clearance, either by the Commission or directly by the Presi-
dent, or as the second alternative a hearing could be set up.
I presume from what I have read in the papers that
the President made the decision that there should be a hear-
ing. These, I think, nre the only two alternatives as far as
• I know that exist,
familiar,
There may be others with which I am not
With that decision, I think a hearing is being
held under nll of the reg'ullltions that have been set up and
the prc>cedures of the AFlC,
I find it very difficult to answer hypothetical
questions without all of the information that went into this
decision,
~IR. GRAY: I think I should, as Chairman, make
an observation for the record, that an assumption about the
• participation of the President of the United States in this
matter is the assumption of the witness.
THE WITNESS: It was only what I read in the paper,
lllr. Chairman.
RV 3283~ Docid:364792 Page 208

e2-12 2194
MR. GRAY: We will nllow the witneRs certainly to
report anythinc of his recollection of what he has read in
•
the pres;s, but I do not want to involve the President of the
United States in this proceedins, because I have no informa-
tion in that regard myself.
MR. GARRISON: Mr. Chairman, I think a little while
back you put a ques;tion to counsel on this side which re-
mained unans-red, when you Raid wouldn't counsel acree that
there was; confusion al! to whether Dr. Oppenheimer had been
cleared--
MR. GRAY: Whether it was formal action.
MR. GARRISON: If I might be permitted to respond--
• do not know.
MR. GRAY: You certainly may.
MR. GARRISON: I would say at this point we simply
I do not know precisely what the course of action
was that waP taken, I made a request a little earlier today
for a copy of the minutes of the August meeting relating to it
which haP been taken under advisement. I have some other
questions having to do with the record which I would like to
put to the Board in the morning. I do not want to take your
time thi• afternoon •
• lilR. ROBB:
I have to leave.
Mr. Chairman, as I advised the Chairman,
I would like to leave
Does Mr. Garrison have anymore questions?

BP soon as I may.
MR. GARRISON: No, Pir,
Hff 32835 Docld:364792 Page 209

' ,
?.195
1(2-13 (At this point, Mr. Robb departed from the hearins.)
DR. EVANS: If you had been a free acent and not
• connected with the11e projects, just an ordinary of the country,
and you had been a11ked to serve on this panel as -
would you have thought it your duty to do so?

have been,
THE WITNESS: Ye11 •
ll!R. GRAY: Thank you very much, Dr_. Bacher. We
appreciate your comins here.
We are rece1111ed now until 9:30 in the morning.
(Thereupon, the hearing wa11 rece11sed at 5:30 p,m,,
to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Tuel!lday, April 27, 1954.)
•
END A.JG
•
llV 3283~ Docid:36•792 Pave 210

Vol XI Oppenheimer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vol XI Oppenheimer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vol XI Oppenheimer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

,,.

UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENE-ROY COMMisSION

In the Matter Of:

Ass_q_c,.iAT!S IN PlllNCIPAL CITIES 20120006255

Hlf 3283~ DocXd:364792 Page 2

CHARLES CHRISTIAN LAURITSEN 2009 2043 2067 2069

JERROLD R. ZACHARIAS 2077 2090 2097

OLLIVER E. BUCKLEY 2101 2111

ROBERT FOX BACHER 2119 2151 2181

PERSONNEL SECURITY BOARD

The above entitled matter came on for hearing,

pursuant to recess, before the Board, at 9:30 a.m.

• PERSONNEL SECURITY BOARD:

MR. GORDON GRAY, Chairman.

MR. GRAY: Before we start, Mr. Garrison, Dr. Evans

• bas a statement he would like to make for the record.

your consent, I should like this to appear in the record at

DR. EVANS: Mr. Chairman, for the record, I would like

the members of the Board made a mistake when they agreed to

rewritten. Personally I knew very little about this case when

I agreed to serve on it at considerable inconvenience to

• myself, and I did so because I thought it was my duty to serve .

MRS. OPPENHEIMER: Yes.

MR. GRAY: Would you be good enough to stand and

raise your right hand. Your name J,s Katherine Qppenheimer"f

MRS. OPPENHEIMER: Yes.

MR. GRAY: Katherine Oppenheimer, do y01 swear that

MRS. OPPENHEIMER: I do.

IRf 3283~ Docid:364792 Page 5

vxamined and testified as follows:

• Mrs. Oppenheimer, it is my duty to remind you of

tbe existence of the perjury statutes.

you are familiar with them.

I should also like to say to you what I have said

to the other witnesses, and that is that we consider these

proceedinRS a confidential natter between the Atomic Energy

and his 1llltnesses and representatives on the other. The Commission

will issue no publi.c releases, and we express the hope that

MR. GRAY: Mr. Garrison, will you proceed?

Q Yrs. Oppenheimer, you are the wife of Dr. J. Robert

Q What were you doing in the autumn of 1933?

A I was attending the University -of Wisconsin .

NW 3283~ Docld:364792 Page 6

A I went to stay with friends of my parents in

A Yes. I have an old friend in Pittsburgh, a girl

called Selma Baker. I saw quite a bit of her at that time.

to meet him. Everybody agreed that would be interesting.

There was a New Year's Party. Selma brought Joe Dallet.

Q Did you and he fall in love during that holiday

Did you decide you would be married?

Q Did you fix a date for that?

A Yes. I decided to go back and finish my semester

at Wisconsin and then join Joe in Youngstown and get ma~ried

Q The semester ended at the end of January, I suppose,

of 1934, and you went to Youngstown?

A Early February. I don't know.

lt Joe Dal let was· a member of the Communist Party?

llff 3283~ Docid:364792 Page 7

I And you knew that he was?