I suggest you take Sudaplatov with a LARGE grain of salt. The memoirs of ex-spies are replete with self-serving truths, important omissions and deliberate misinterpretations to meet political goals. Don't forget the 'security' establishments on both sides of the Former Cold War have scores to settle, clients to stroke and budgets to fill. Ask yourself this: why should he tell the truth *now*, and how much is he likely to tell? In regard to Oppenheimer and the like, I suggest treating all observations with care. Remember that the national security state apparatus starting growing in earnest after World War II but suspicion of foreign influence goes back to the labor movement of the 1870s, and the art of the smear was perfected certainly by the time of the Palmer Raids about 1920. My very limited knowledge of Oppenheimer and others of that era is that it is highly unlikely they provided much of strategic value to the Russians. Otherwise incidental contact at the political or scientific levels was used effectively after World War II to destroy careers on both sides of the Iron Curtain (re-read Darkness At Noon for the mirror image). If I may summarize: the one thing we must learn from the last 100 years is that the least trustworthy in our society are those we have deeded the most trust (knowingly or not). But then, it's hardly a new thing after all. The Latin phrase says it most clearly: Quis custodiet custodies?