Well said gero2006

One cannot fathom the thoughts of those who involve themselves with war. Best to leave those thoughts in the history books and judge and hold accountable our leaders today. Lest we face another Earth shattering war, or worse, a natural disaster of catastrophic proportions. Neither of which our leaders have prepared the true VIPs (civilians) for.

Personally, I think Hippocrates’ ‘first do no harm’ rule applies to science as well as medicine. Following this principle, I think Heisenberg should have left Germany when Hitler became Chancellor. I am not convinced by the excuses he gives to explain why he stayed. By staying he not only aligned himself with the Nazis but gave the regime access to his skills which, of course, they attempted to turn to evil. Heisenberg demonstrates how a scientist should not behave.

I hope every under-grad on a science or engineering degree programme watches this documentary and really thinks about the ethical responsibilities of science and engineering. Put yourself in the shoes of any of the people involved: Bohr or Heisenberg, their wives, or friends, or colleagues. What would you have done?

When I was young I felt deep contempt for scientists like Einstein (I used to refer to him as the ‘moral imbecile’) who worked on the bomb. But as you get older you get less quick to condemn and I thank God I have not been tested as much as that war-time generation were. I certainly think Heisenberg behaved unethically but would I have been any better? But for the grace of God…

I disagree. You seem to be implying that the Heisenberg’s second account, the one in the book published after the event, is the one that is true.

It appears to me that Heisenberg only went along with the book’s account of the copenhagen meeting because it portrayed him as a hero.

I agree that the Nazis would not have allowed a visit to a Danish scientist without a purpose, but i think that Heisenberg had no intention of carrying out any orders the Nazi’s would have given him during that meeting, given his distaste with the Nazi views. The doc mentioned he talked in code, incase any Nazis were listening in.

The Bohr letters also reveal that the first account Heisenberg gave, and the second account, as told by the book written about them, are dramatically different. Heisenberg would have no reason to lie about the first account, as the war was over, and he was in no danger of retribution. He would, however, have an incentive to lie when he read the false account given by the book. By professing the second account he would be accepted back in to the scientific community.

I don’t believe Heisenberg came to copenhagen to make a deal with Bohr, even if that is what the Nazi’s would have wanted. I believe that he did in fact come to copenhagen to ask Bohr what his opinion on the moral dilemma was. Bohr was his best friend and teacher, and Heisenberg would have felt better knowing what he thought of the work. When Bohr took the question wrong, he then explained why he came to him in the first place. Because his plan backfired and Bohr would not talk to him, he then changed his story for the book, in order to win the favor of the scientific community.

3. Why in the world would a German scientist meet with a Jewish scientist in a country occupied by Germany. It must have been business. Otherwise there is no reason for the Germans to allow it.

Even if Bohr had accepted the deal, there is no way in the world it would make the whole Allied side to follow him.

He could justify his late involvement with bomb making with the comfortable understanding that a rigorous German program was at work. Then he finds out that it had been canned! Deep within he must of felt the agitation and asked; “how do I now deal with this personal moral question”. My failure?

He under no duress had joined the American/English effort. For the most part, American scientist have avoided the moral question of personal involvement by passing the buck. It is up to someone else to decide(aiding and abetting) we are just scientists- the exact attitude Heisenberg was struggling with.(even if not understood in 42 by the fifties it was clear)

Bohr on the other hand, had jumped at the chance to make a bomb. His life was not even at risk. For his own moral sanity, he must interpret the visit as sinister.

I would love a documentary about the scientists(if any) in the “free” world that said NO, I will not aid and abet.