'In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer': Relevant revival of a docudrama 
 
Jay Hauben (jhauben)      
 
Recently showing in New York City at the Connelly Theater is the play "In
the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer." Written by Heiner Kipphardt in 1964,
the play was translated from German into English by Ruth Speirs in
1967.(1) Kipphardt based his script on the 3,000 typewritten page verbatim
record of the proceedings against J. Robert Oppenheimer, published by the
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission in May 1954 (2) just after the conclusion of
the historic hearing.

The play presents both sides of a serious debate at that time and now.  
What are the dangers in modern society and who are the enemies of
democracy? The portrayal is intense and interesting. The actors were well
cast, in particular, Thomas Jay Ryan, who brought Oppenheimer alive for
the audience.

This dramatized documentary accurately retells the story of the hearing
that confirmed the continued denial of a security clearance of
Oppenheimer. If plays could portray contemporary events with similar
success, such docudrama might be considered a form of journalism.

I would not expect in 2006 that many people in the world know the name J.  
Robert Oppenheimer. He lived from 1904 to 1967. The work for which he
would be best known was done over 50 years ago. "Oppie," as his friends
called him, was the science director of the U.S. Manhattan Project which
from 1942 to 1945 developed the world's first atomic bombs. In the
mainstream press he was called the "Father of the Atomic Bomb."

The dropping of those bombs in August 1945 on the Japanese and their
cities deeply troubled Oppenheimer and many others who worked on the
Manhattan Project.(3) From then on, Oppenheimer worked towards nuclear
arms control. As early as 1946, he conceived of a proposal to the U.S.  
government that an international agency monopolize all aspects of nuclear
energy and develop it for strictly civilian purposes.(4) A separate
proposal was pitched to the United Nations, which was rejected.

The Soviet Union tested its first atomic bomb in August 1949. The U.S.  
military-industrial complex that President Dwight Eisenhower later warned
was a danger (5) recognized that a crash program to build a thermonuclear
device would make many lucrative contracts available. From that point of
view, any dissent that might derail the crash program, especially dissent
from a well-respected scientist like Oppenheimer, would be a danger to
their interests. "The death peddlers and their political proxies crush
dissent" if they can.(6)

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, the Soviet Union was portrayed to the
American people as a grave danger, mythically seeking to destroy the
United States by military means. A campaign of fear was whipped up known
as McCarthyism. Still, in 1952, Oppenheimer helped present to the U.S.  
government a proposal that the United States put off testing the world's
first thermonuclear device until an effort was made to win a Soviet
agreement to ban such tests.

Unlike atomic bombs, thermonuclear devices are based on nuclear fusion,
the process that creates the heat of the sun, and have no theoretical
limit to their destructive power. Instead of giving the proposal for an
agreement a try, the U.S. government decided to continue the crash program
to produce and test thermonuclear weapons.

Thermonuclear devices were tested by the United States on Oct. 31, 1952
and by the Soviet Union on Aug. 8, 1953. The nuclear arms race Oppenheimer
had hoped to avoid was now a major problem for the whole world. Such
weapons if used could destroy any life worth living.

As a part of the environment of the intensified nuclear arms race, the
U.S. government felt it was necessary to weed out any internal
"weaknesses." Because of Oppenheimer's important role in the secret war
work and his early association with people with left-wing affiliations, he
had been under constant and extreme surveillance by the FBI and military
intelligence since 1942. His mail was regularly intercepted, his phone
calls and conversations recorded, and surveillance operatives made regular
reports. They even set him various traps. No disloyalty was ever
uncovered.

Despite his proven loyalty and service to the United States, in the
environment of 1954, a hearing was held that year from April 12 to May 6
to strip Oppenheimer of any further influence in the U.S. government or
among the American people. This play documents that hearing.

The setting is a courtroom. The case against Oppenheimer is that he had
left-wing leanings when he was young and couldn't be trusted. For example,
in the mid-1930s he contributed money to the fight against fascism and the
Franco coup in Spain and even donated that money through the U.S.  
Communist Party. Also, Oppenheimer had friends with similar leftist
leanings and some who were in the Communist Party.

One of the lawyers opposing Oppenheimer says in the play, "We are
investigating whether Dr. Oppenheimer is a security risk today... We must
examine ... how strong Oppenheimer's sympathies were, how persistent they
are, what consequences this had for us in the past, and whether we can
afford such consequences in the future... It is ... the possibility of the
free world being destroyed which makes our security measures rigorous and
uncompromising." Oppenheimer's dissent must be taken as a sign of
disloyalty, the lawyer implied.

Oppenheimer's defense team counters this argument by portraying scientists
as naturally thoughtful and in general humanistic. It should be expected
that they have left leanings and dissent. How can there be new ideas if
there is only conformity? Oppenheimer and other physicists could better
than others know the dangers and inappropriateness of thermonuclear
devices for weapons. Such weapons of mass destruction could only be used
to destroy very large cities. To whose benefit could that be? In the words
of physicist Hans Bethe in the play, "After a war with hydrogen bombs,
even if we were to win it, the world would no longer be the world we want
to preserve, and we would lose all things we were fighting for."

In opposition to this view, physicist Edward Teller says earlier in the
play, "I am convinced that people will learn political common sense only
when they are really and truly scared. Only when the bombs are so big that
they can destroy everything there is."

One witness, John Lansdale, the chief of security of the Manhattan
Project, sums up a criticism of the hearing shared by Oppenheimer's
defense team. He says in the play, "I think that the current hysteria over
communism is a danger to our way of life and our form of democracy. Lawful
criteria are being obliterated by fear and demagoguery." Upon further
questioning he is asked what in his opinion can be done to ensure maximum
security? He answers, "We must see to it that we have the best ideas and
the best way of life."

In the end, Oppenheimer is denied a security clearance. But by then, the
play has given the impression that the outcome was predetermined by the
prosecution, and behind it, the U.S. government. Oppenheimer needed to be
punished for his advocacy of a thermonuclear test ban treaty. Otherwise,
other scientists might have lost their enthusiasm for working on such
weapons.

Why is this play being staged now? Why was the theater full? What is the
context and message of this piece of history?

This play was revived after a long absence from New York, according to the
director, because he sensed it was relevant and there would be an interest
in it. He was correct. Some people in the United States, perhaps many in
New York City, appreciate a play which reviews American history. They hope
to avoid another period like the dark days of McCarthyism descending again
on the United States.
 
Notes:

(1) "In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer": A play freely adapted on the
basis of the Documents, by Heiner Kipphardt, translated by Ruth Speirs,
New York, Hill and Wang, 1968
(2) "In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer": Transcript of Hearings
before Personnel Security Board, Washington, D.C., April 12, 1954 through
May 6, 1954. (1954)
(3) I personally know physicists who spent the rest of their careers
seeking humanist applications of their science such as elementary school
science experiences or switching to biology as the science of life.
(4) The Acheson-Lilienthal Report which contained Oppenheimer's detailed
proposal was rejected by President Harry Truman and "translated" into the
Baruch proposal to the United Nations in such a way as to insure rejection
by the Soviet Union.
(5) "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition
of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of
misplaced power exists and will persist... We must never let the weight of
this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should
take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can
compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of
defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty
may prosper together," Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
(6) In a fine review of this play in the Village Voice, June 14-20, 2006,
page 73, Michael Feingold used this phrase to describe the U.S.  
military-industrial complex.
------------------ 

Play Credits 

Cast: Dan Daily, Peter Davies, Matt Fischel, Wilbur Edwin Henry, Jonathan
Hogan, DJ Mendel, Matthew Rauch, Keith Reddin, Steve Routman, Thomas Jay
Ryan, Rocco Sisto, Ian Stuart

Author: Heinar Kipphardt, Director: Carl Forsman, Sets: Nathan Heverin,
Lighting: Josh Bradford, Costumes: Theresa Squire, Dramaturg: Melissa 
Hardy, Producing Company: Keen Compan
----------------------------------------------------------------------