(3 of 10)
Q: Didn't you say that X approached three people?
A: Probably.
Q: Why did you do that, Doctor?
A: Because I was an idiot.
Q: Is that your only explanation, Doctor?
A: I was reluctant to mention Chevalier ... no doubt somewhat reluctant to mention myself.
Q: But why did you tell him that Chevalier had gone to three people?
A: I have no explanation for that except the one already offered . . .
Q: Did you tell Colonel Pash that X had spoken to you about the use of microfilm?
A: It seems unlikely. You have a record, and I will abide by it.
Q: If X had spoken to you about the use of microfilm, that would have shown definitely that he was not an innocent contact?
A: It certainly would.
Q: Did you tell Colonel Pash that X had told you the information would be transmitted through someone at the Russian Consulate?
(No reply.) Q: Did you? A: I would have said not, but I clearly see that I must have.
Q: If X had said that, that would have shown conclusively that it was a criminal conspiracy, would it not? A: That is right.
Q: Did Pash ask you for the name of X? A: I imagine he did.
Q: Don't you know that he did?
A: Sure.
Q: Did he tell you why he wanted it? A: In order to stop the business . . .
Q: And didn't you know, Doctor, that by refusing to give the name of X you were impeding the investigation? A: I must have known that . . .
Q: Why did you go into such great circumstantial detail about this thing if you were telling a cock-and-bull story?
A: I fear this whole thing is a piece of idiocy. I'm afraid I can't explain why there was a consul, why there was microfilm, why there were three people on the project, why two of them were at Los Alamos . . .
Q: Isn't it a fair statement to say, Dr. Oppenheimer, that, according to your testimony now, you told not one lie to Colonel Pash but a whole fabrication and tissue of lies?
A: Right . . .
While the whole "cock-and-bull story" had a ring of the past in it, Oppenheimer's association with the Red-tainted Chevalier did not. He testified that when he was in Paris last December, he and Mrs.
Oppenheimer saw Mr. and Mrs. Chevalier on two occasions, had dinner with them one evening.
"A Better Summary." In his defense against the charge that he delayed the development of the hydrogen bomb, Oppenheimer was also a bad witness for himself. In the past he had maintained that he, as chairman of the General Advisory Committee to the AEC, had not opposed the hydrogen bomb. What he was against, he insisted, was a "crash program" to build the bomb in a hurry, with very high priorities which he felt might inter fere with A-bomb production. But he ran into difficulty as Security Board Counsel Robb cross-examined him.
Robb: Doctor, is it a fair summary of your answer . . . that what the GAC opposed in its October 29, 1949 meeting was merely a crash program for the development of the Super [the H-bomb]? Oppenheimer: Yes, I think it would be a better summary to say we opposed this crash program as the answer to the Soviet atomic bomb.
Q: What did you mean by a crash program?