hakki,
thanks for the further clarification of heisenberg's background. i hope it is clear to you that i have no particular interest in defending his politics. i am just a bit cautious about branding someone a "nazi", which even though technically applicable to such folks as heidegger, seems to add a baggage of horrors that they might not have committed or participated in in a direct way. whether this puts them on morally higher ground is debatable of course.
perhaps i was splitting hairs with respect to your post, since the point i was trying to make was that the newly released bohr papers only restate (in firmer tones) his differences with heisenberg's version of what transpired, and therefore bring about no significant resolution to the debate. you have addressed that somewhat in your responses to me (such as by pointing out that bohr later produced details at los alomos of a plan that H supposedly described to him, but in a way, this leads to further doubts on bohr's recollection of events!).
i too am doubtful that heisenberg acted in any lofty way to retard the german project...
all of which leads me to a question: who is termed a nazi? someone who was a member of the party? any member of the german army? someone who had a direct hand in the atrocities committed?
--ravi