Short notice on intellectuals

I continue to be extremely interested in issues regarding the Cold War, as I consider that many of the patterns created then still continue to influence our ways of thinking and translating the facts. The place of intellectuals, mostly scientists, in the East/West confrontation, their blindness - in supporting indefinitely the Moscow's part - the "red hunt", the political manifestos, and all the games behind the scenes will play a big part of my studies and lectures. In these stormy times, intellectuals were used or offered their services, to a part or another, and rarely were able to express dissenting opinions and positions. I am very familiar with the situation of intellectuals during the communist regimes, I followed some of the cases of intellectuals during the Third Reich but had a limited knowledge of the situation in the "free world", excepting my regrets for the lack of integrity in defending the cause of free thinking and to oppose repression from the other side of the Iron Curtain.

The very detailed biography of Robert Oppenheimer gave me new food for thought for deconstructing the myth of the beneficial role of the intellectuals. Far of becoming an anti-intellectual myself, I recognize the limits of human self-awareness and indifference, independently of the level of education and intelligence. Preoccupied by their works, not without direct political and civic implications - as it was in the case of the atomic bomb, they have often limited understanding of the need of expressing solidarity and civic involvement. For example, enjoying the freedom of thinking might imply to be able to defend, whenever necessary the situations when other scientists are not able to do their work in the same conditions. Very often, I think that "Dreyfus affair" was a very singular case in the intellectual history.

For me, Oppenheimer is a sad example of this lack of involvement and the refuse to be more than a wonderful mind. An encyclopedic mind and a coherent scientist, he - like many others - went involved - but not as a full member - in the activities of the Communist Party from the US, mostly as a counter action to the advance of Nazi Germany. From the book, it is not very clear the ways in which this US Communist Party fought or reacted against the fate of the European Jews. In Europe, Paul Dirac and other scientists were more connected to the Soviet Russia, but still unable to create a common front against what was happening in Germany, including with their Jewish colleagues. Little by little, once he's involvement in the Manhattan Project is increasing, Oppenheimer is becoming neutral regarding the communists, whose fellow traveller used to be for a while and dedicated fully to the works for building the atomic bomb, together with other bright minds. At the realm of the Cold War and when the pressures at various levels of the American establishment increased, Oppenheimer will be the perfect victim for separating the waters. The trial was unfair and the non-academic ambitions of the political and military elites played an enormous role. But, even in this situation, he refused to express but than scientific advices following the consequences of the use of the atomic bomb at Hiroshima and Nagasaki or to separate clearly from his late Communist involvement. Obviously, it was a sporadic involvement, without a clear knowledge of all the sides of the story. And the public support from the part of his fellow scientists was limited as well. He was, perhaps, hiding many untold stories and the question of a possible spying case the Soviets, directly or by tolerating this kind of activities of scientists working for the Manhattan Project, is missing from the book. But, even confronted with days and hours of interviews and confrontations, he kept a low profile and hide behind his quiet world of ideas. He behaved predominantly defensive and reactive, as he lost the case before exposing all the arguments. He devoted most part of his life to a scientific project, but without understanding clearly all the implications. The tragic situation of being carried by the unchanging waves of politics.

The chronological structure of the book, describing step-by-step his personal and professional life, is not helping too much in understanding the context and the history of mentalities from this period. Given the enormous documentation, it was perhaps the most recommended way to build the narrative, but a synthetic perspective would add value and create a bigger framework of the world of ideas from the period of the Cold War and before.