Henry V. Kissinger

Sincerely yours,

Best regards,

Rome in the spring. opportunity to meet again when I am in Bristol Hotel. I hope we will have an what a pleasure it was to see you at the This is just a note to tell you

Dear Mr. Rogers:

Italy
Rome
Bologna Di Spagna 12
Ing. C. Olivetti & C. - 2.P.A.
Direttore Centrale
Dr. Paolo N. Rogers

February 13, 1967

olivetti

Ing. C. Olivetti & C., S. p. A. - Ivrea
Capitale L. 60.000.000.000

Direzione
per le Relazioni Internazionali

Roma - Piazza di Spagna 15
Tel. 68 10 46 - 67 20 18 - 67 23 88
Ind. telegr.: Esterolivetti Roma

Prof. Henry A. Kissinger
Harvard University
Center for International Affairs
6 Divinity Avenue
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. 02138

Rome, February 17, 1967

PNR/gm

Dear Prof. Kissinger,

Thank you ever so much for your kind note of
February 13.

It has been a great pleasure also for me to see you, even though too
briefly, in Paris.

I am very happy to notice that you are included in the list of suggest-
ed participants to the IV Euro-American Conference organized jointly
by the Institute for Strategic Studies and by the Institute for Interna-
tional Affairs at Fregene on May 5-7.

Since I have also been invited as a member of the Italian team, I am
looking forward to the pleasure of seeing you there.

With kindest personal regards, I am,

FEB 21 1967

September 29, 1960

Dr. Otto Rohdich
378 North Mountain Avenue
Upper Montclair, New Jersey

Dear Dr. Rohdich:

I have just returned from a trip
to the Far East to find your letter of the
14th and wish to thank you for it. Because
the New York Times article contained many
inaccuracies, I am taking the liberty of
sending you a reprint of the same article,
and I hope you will find it interesting.

Otto Rohdich, Ph.D.
378 North Mountain Avenue
Upper Montclair, N.J.

September 14, 1960.

Dear Sir:

There was an article in The New York Times of 9-11-1960: "Crisis held near over arms race", referring to a publication in the magazine "Daedalus", which was not available to me.

Respecting your considerations, may I ask you kindly to discuss this object with you.

Agree with you, that the arms race is moving toward a danger and irresponsible nonsense. Furthermore, for myself I am convinced, that it must be and remain our aim to abolish all weapons for war purpose and to bound them to protection against criminals and violators of laws, like at present operated by the police in all civilized nations. But what about in the meantime? You see the main task in abolishing the A-weapons. Why? Obviously because you consider A-weapons the badest ones according to their qualitative and quantitative effect. But those who have to die in a war do not care, whether they were deprived of their life by an arrow or by the most modern weapon; dead is dead, like it is demonstrated now in the Congo. And did we not be satisfied by the qualitative and quantitative effect of the weapons in the last war against life of soldiers and civilians and against works without A-weapons? There is not a moral difference between human and inhuman weapons; by nobody and never an invention of weapons was made or was ordered to make with the target to work humanly. The respective effect of any weapon corresponds only with the present development of science and technique and the money you are able and willing to spend for, without moral consideration and compassion (compare poem son-and biological weapons). Furthermore, there is not possible a superlative nor an end: dynamite is not the last and remains not the most effective indirect-chemical weapon. Who is able to predict, nuclear arms will be the last and the most terrible ones? If not, you stay again at the beginning: you have to worry again about a new, perhaps more terrific weapon. Therefore

[lc]

the task:abolish all weapons for war, not only one. Finally, I have the impression, you overlooked the Problem China, which will be soon a powerful, important nation with A-weapons. What would happen, if the Russians would say for instance: we must return to A-weapons with respect to China?

But how to do such a work, to abolish all weapons? Certainly, it will be difficult and taking a long time, but finally with an inevitable: either-or. You consider it the best, to negotiate with the Russians very closely and with disarmament wide obligingness, even by an unilateral USA decision of ABOLISHMENT. But how to do such a work, to make the problem progressive; and you believe, the Russians would be morally forced hereby to do likewise. But the nuclear arms and the arms race are not the primary problem, they are really a symptom. The real cause, why the peace is always and always more seriously threatened and why the disarmament endeavours do not proceed, is the all-round distrust between the peoples, better between the governments. Why is an international trade, an international mailcooperation possible? Because and as long as there is confidence, International trade is interrupted, as soon as distrust is arising for instance, that some goods could be used for war. But what do you think about, reading in the partner's vocabulary as a principle: good is which is of use for the state, or there are also just and therefore permitted wars, and the 1 inventor of this principle is his own judge to decide, what is a just war? And what do you think about, noticing that even peace is not the primary ideal and the most desirable aim, but to make the whole world bolshewik: either-or (s. Korea, Poland? Balticum, mohammedan people, Hungary, African States, Germany). That is not the manner to prepare confidence. But there are religious communities, philosophical associations and other international philanthropic and idealistic organisations, the first and most important task of them it should be to make the nations peaceful, understanding each other, estimating each other, like Ganni did, like Albert Schweitzer does, like Frank N.D. Buchman does, like Christ did.

The technical part of this problem -disarmament- can be handled by bi-and multilateral negotiations gradually and only as a junctim between A- and conventional weapons under bi-and multilateral real and just control,

[Lc]

adapted to each step of the disarmament and getting effective at the beginning of each part of disarmament-but all negotiations under the aspect of the inevitable: either-or, the latter meaning: if the partner is maliciously obstinate, we consider us as entitled to do our best for our people in producing the most efficacious weapons. It seems unrealistic and useless to let things go or to do anything of great consequence unilateral, which should be a joint task, looking, whether the Russians would return to nuclear arms or to nuclear blackmail; it would be then to late for us for an efficacious counter action. It is necessary to have a full, clear and realistic idea of these things, to handle them in a right way.

I should be thankful to you, kindly giving me explaining word.

Mr. Henry A. Kissinger,
Professor of Harvard University
Cambridge, Mass.

One copy to Professor Edward Teller
of the University of California.

Henry V. Klaasinger

Dear regards,

attention of people in the Department.
recommend, but I will bring it to the
There is no one I can specifically
the German Internship Program.

Thank you for your letter regarding
the German Internship Program.

Dear Mr. Romoer:

New London, Connecticut
Connecticut College
Department of Government
Mr. George K. Romoer

March 24, 1967

Henry A. Kissinger

Sincerely yours,

Kind regards.

in a week or two.
I shall think about the matter and let you know

permission rights.

Thank you for your letter of April 22, concerning

Dear Professor Rosenau:

New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903
Department of Political Science
Donglass College
Rutgers - The State University
Professor James W. Rosenau

7 May 1968

APR 29 1968

RUTGERS • THE STATE UNIVERSITY

DOUGLASS COLLEGE
DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

NEW BRUNSWICK, NEW JERSEY 08903

DOUGLASS

April 25, 1968

Professor Henry A. Kissinger
Center for International Affairs
Harvard University
6 Divinity Avenue
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138

Dear Professor Kissinger:

Your letter of April 23rd comes as quite a blow and I hasten to appeal to you to reconsider my possible use of your article in *Daedalus*.

It is such an important article that I find it hard to imagine the *Reader* without it. There are many pieces I will be including that could be dropped I suppose, but yours is not one of them. I know of no other succinct analysis that links domestic factors and foreign behavior so brilliantly and thoroughly as yours.

I also dare to ask you to reconsider on the grounds that the audience for our respective works is likely to be very different. The *Reader* is read widely by graduate students and almost no one else. Hence by including your article you would be reaching an important group over a number of years. I have found that many of us actually view it as desirable to reach several kinds of audiences with the same article and I would think that this point would also appeal to you. There will be some sixty selections in the *Reader*, so that it certainly will not in any way be competitive with your work (which I assume will not be a collection of readings by different authors).

I am further impelled to appeal to you on the grounds that the article has already been published. It is not as if I were asking permission to circulate materials that had not yet reached the light of day. If that was the case, I could readily understand why you would not grant permission. Indeed, I have done as much myself. In the case of already published materials, however, convention would seem to be that permission is ordinarily granted. In my several editing efforts, in fact, permission has been denied only once. In a book entitled *The Roosevelt Treasury* that I edited a number of years ago, Walter Lippmann refused permission to include the column he wrote in early 1932 that contended that FDR had little talent and would offer little more than amiability in the White House. Upon reflection I came to appreciate why he refused permission, which suggests that the only appropriate basis for refusal would be a situation in which the materials in question were for some reason obsolete or embarrassing. Plainly this is not the case with your article.

For all these reasons I hope you can find your way to reconsider.

P.S. It occurs to me that there is a parallel here with the inclusion of your *Reporter* article in the first edition of the *Reader*. You gave me permission to use that piece even though it later appeared in a reworked form in *The Necessity of Choice*.

FEB 2 1968

6335 Beryl Road
Alexandria, Virginia 22312

January 30, 1968

Professor Henry A. Kissinger
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Dear Professor Kissinger:

On January 28, 1968 the local UHF Channel 26 carried the PBL program during which you participated in a discussion of the Pueblo incident.

I would like to congratulate you on the manner of your participation. I found your comments to be cogent, thoughtful and well reasoned as well as greatly contributing to the discussion.

Aside from expressing my appreciation, there is another purpose to this letter. Immediately prior, during and after World War II, I was very close to a Walter Kissinger. Walter, like myself, was a German Jewish refugee, lived in the Washington Heights Section of Manhattan and had a brother named Henry. Further, there appeared to be some resemblance to you.

Naturally, I am piqued by a possible coincidence. I would appreciate it if you would let me know if you have a brother who fits the above description. If so, could you let me have his address so I can find out what has happened to him in all these intervening years.

THE INSTITUTE OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH
HITOTSUBASHI UNIVERSITY
KUNITACHI, TOKYO, JAPAN

June 28, 1957

Dr. Henry Kissinger
The International Seminar
Harvard University
Cambridge, Mass.

Dear Henry,

I have been in Japan for almost a year and it has been some time since we have seen each other, but there has been no lack of news about you (or at least your opinions) in Foreign Affairs and now the Reporter. Because the bearer of this letter, Mr. Roo Watanabe, is one of your excellent choices for the Seminar this year and also an acquaintance of mine, I am taking this opportunity to send regards with him. I am certain that he will make an outstanding contribution to the group, and I hope for his sake that there will be a beautiful French girl -- like that famous one with the double-name!

We are staying for another year--I am trying to complete a book on Japanese capital formation from Meiji to the present. If you are out this way please drop by or if I can be helpful to you in any other way, just let me know.

Best regards to Anne.

[L]

Ross-McElroy Productions, Inc.

TELEPHONE: DELAWARE 7-4133

952 NORTH MICHIGAN AVENUE • CHICAGO

October 29, 1964

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Dear Dr. Kissinger:

By way of introduction our firm produces various radio and tele-
vision programs on the ABC station in Chicago.

One of these programs is a weekly conversation show entitled
OFF THE CUFF. This program runs approximately two hours in length
and devotes itself to a particular subject or area of interest. The guests
participating in the conversation are invited because of their interest in
or professional relationship with the topic for discussion. I'm enclosing
a brochure which briefly describes the program as well as a guest list
of some of the programs that might be of interest to you.

I note that you will be in Chicago on December 4th to address the
Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, and this brings me to my reason
for writing. I wonder if there is any possibility that you might be in
Chicago a day early, December 3, or would be willing to come in a day
early to tape an OFF THE CUFF with us. We would build the conversa-
tion around the general subject matter of your address to the Council.
Some of the guests that we would invite to join you, if they are free on
that same day, would be Hans Morgenthau of the University of Chicago,
William McGovern, Northwestern University, Eugene Rabinowitch of
the University of Illinois, Milburn P. Akers, Editor of the Chicago Sun-
Times, and people of like caliber.

I realize your schedule is terribly busy, but we would be most grateful
if you could tape OFF THE CUFF with us on December 3rd. We tape from
1:30 to 4:00 in the afternoon in the ABC Studio at 190 North State Street.
The show would play back on Sunday evening, December 6th, so it would
not in any way jump the gun on your address to the Council. I must add
that we are unable to pay an honorarium to guests on this show. If this

CORNELL UNIVERSITY

ITHACA, NEW YORK

DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT

WEST SIBLEY

July 6, 1960

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
104 Fletcher Road
Belmont, Massachusetts

Dear Henry:

The editors of *National Review* magazine have asked me for assistance
in suggesting to the subscribers to the Reader's Guide to Periodical
Literature the reason for indexing their publication.

I should not normally think it necessary to take the measure I am
now proposing, but I have been advised of the unusual procedures by which
listing in the Reader's Guide is attained. The publishers, H. W. Wilson
Company, take no responsibility for the listings. Magazines are listed,
or not, according to the vote of the Guide's 11,000 subscribers. Moreover,
their vote is taken only once in every seven years, and is shortly due to
be taken, with the result that if a magazine is not chosen this next fall,
it cannot try again until 1967.

My view is that the *National Review*, whatever one may think of its
policies, is a magazine of opinion to which students of current affairs
should have access. I realize, however, that as a small magazine, about
the size of *The Nation*, *The New Republic*, *Commonweal*, and *America* - all
of which are listed by the Reader's Guide - it does not have the promotional
budget with which to advertise its existence throughout the country. That

- 2 -

being the case, I deem it justified to bring to the attention of the Guide's subscribers, most of whom are librarians, the place of this magazine among journals of opinion, and to endorse it as an aid to students and researchers who want to take the full measure of current tendencies. I shall do this without in the least suggesting my own endorsement of its views. I should do as much for any magazine, left or right or in-between, that reflects distinctively and literately a significant segment of American opinion.

I propose, therefore, to send the enclosed letter to the subscribers to the Reader's Guide. I should be most grateful for your endorsement. If you are willing to help, please return one of the attached forms (the other is for your file), with your signature.

EIC

FRAKTION DER SPD

IM DEUTSCHEN BUNDESTAG

Hellmuth Roth

Herrn

Prof. Henry A. Kissinger
Harvard-University,
International Center

Boston/USA

5300 BONN BUNDESHAUS

den 19. Juli 1966

FERNSPRECHER 206 2883 r-e

Die Wahl dieser Rufnummer vermittelt den gewünschten Hausanschluß

Kommt ein Anschluß nicht zustande, bitte
Nr. 2061 (Bundeshaus-Vermittlung) anrufen

Lieber Herr Prof. Kissinger,

zunächst möchte ich Ihnen noch einmal dafür danken, daß Sie sich die Zeit genommen haben, mit mir über Probleme der Nato und Europas zu sprechen. Sie werden inzwischen aus der Presse erfahren haben, daß die deutsche Bundesregierung sich positiv zu einer europäischen Sicherheitskonferenz ausgesprochen hat, unter der Voraussetzung, daß die Vereinigten Staaten von Beginn an an einer solchen Konferenz beteiligt werden. Ich persönlich glaube, daß eine solche Konferenz in zwei bis drei Jahren möglich sein könnte.

Je mehr ich darüber nachdenke, um so zweckmäßiger erschien es mir, im Frühjahr oder Frühsommer nächsten Jahres ein internationales Treffen auf privater Basis zu veranstalten, auf der die verschiedenen Möglichkeiten und Aspekte eines europäischen Sicherheitssystems diskutiert werden sollten. Hielten Sie eine solche Konferenz für zweckmäßig, auf der die verschiedenen Auffassungen diskutiert und vor allem die Rangfolge der dabei auftretenden Probleme definiert werden könnten?

// Anliegend übersende ich Ihnen heute die vier Hauptreferate, die auf dem Dortmunder Parteitag der SPD gehalten wurden. Dabei möchte ich Ihr Augenmerk vor allem auf die Rede von Helmut Schmidt lenken.

- 2 -

American Consulate General
5/I Harington Street,
Calcutta - 16

January 19, 1962

Dear Dr. Kissinger,

I understand that you have some engagements this morning and since your plane leaves at 2 O' clock you shall not be able to drop in.

I may send you herewith another article written by me in late 1955, titled "Nineteenth Century Bengal", which may give you some background about the Indian social tradition in order to appreciate the problems that Indian democracy faces in India. Of course, the institution of local-self government established by the British during their rule in India has to some extent developed an attachment for democratic institution, but I would be inclined to believe that that attachment to democratic farm institution is feeble compared to the counter-pulls of Indian social tradition. As an example I would cite that during the last war the popular Indian support was for the Axis powers, particularly the Germans and more particularly for the ideal of dictatorship represented by Hitler. This of course was greatly influenced by the nationalist feeling against continued British rule in India.

I do not want to make this a lengthy letter and hope to write something on the problems of Indian democracy vis-a-vis Indian social tradition soon after the elections are over and send it to you.

It was really a great pleasure to have met you and talked to you here in Calcutta.

With sincere regards,

Dr. Henry Kissinger.

RCAF STAFF COLLEGE JOURNAL

Our File: 57-103

ARMOUR HEIGHTS, TORONTO 12, ONTARIO

6 February, 1958.

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger,
Associate Director,
Center for International Affairs,
Harvard University,
Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.

Dear Dr. Kissinger:

I am writing to ask if you would prepare an article for publication in the R.C.A.F. Staff College Journal.

The aim of the Journal is to encourage discussion of military air matters through publication of serious articles of professional calibre. The first section of the Journal is a Symposium, in which we will publish the work of outstanding authorities who have been invited to write on aspects of a currently significant theme. The theme for this year's Symposium is to be the impact of the latest technological developments - ballistic missiles and earth satellites, etc. - on today's situation.

To carry this theme we hope to publish the articles described in the attached Outline. We would greatly appreciate having your views on the first of these subjects; the effects the new developments may or should have on western strategy. We are particularly interested in your ideas because of the significance of the theories in your "Nuclear Wars and Foreign Policy", a book which has been studied with the greatest interest at the College.

A complimentary copy of last year's Journal is enclosed. We prefer articles to be no longer than 5,000 words, and as a professional journal we pay contributors at the rate of three cents a word. The deadline for manuscripts is 1st June.

We will consider it a great honour if you are able to write for us, and remain most anxious to hear from you.

Yours sincerely,

(W.A. Orr) Air Commodore,
Chairman, Board of Directors,
R.C.A.F. Staff College Journal.

# OUTLINE FOR THE SYMPOSIUM

## Area of Interest

The area of interest for the 1958 Journal Symposium will be the impact on air power and on strategy generally of the technological developments of 1957-58. The 1957 Journal Symposium dealt with the military situation as shaped by the presence of nuclear weapons and high-speed aircraft; the 1958 Symposium will examine the effects of ballistic missiles, earth satellites, atomic power for aircraft, etc., on the military scene. The area will be covered by articles with the following terms of reference:

**Item 1** The strategy for the western alliance as we enter the era of missiles, satellites, etc. This will be a broad survey of the impact of new technological developments on the West's military strategy.

**Item 2** A critique of the main strategic theories advanced in the past year. This will be a comparison of the ideas of Slessor, Kingston-McCloughry, Kissinger, Kennan, the United Kingdom White Paper, the Rockefeller Report, the Gaither Report, and any more recent significant statements.

**Item 3** The shape of small or fringe war in the era of satellites, missiles, etc. A discussion of the scope and character of small fringe type wars as a result of the technological advances of 1957-58.

**Item 4** Missile Age Forces. An examination of the effects of technological advances on the size, deployment, and employment of military forces, particularly air forces.

**Item 5** Strategy for the small power. An examination of the strategic military problems of a small power in the new age.

**Item 6** Problems of supply and equipment in the light of the new weapons.