May it not be that there is a subconscious psychological drive to actually induce hope by idolyzing situations not only this bad but which in the very character of their claiming menaces and deficiencies seem to imply situations that if they existed in the environment of the idolizers could appear to offer real, huge, easily visualized created tasks for a new generation.

(We had a chance to discuss this the other day)

Point 11 - Page 16 last sentence.

"for all their confusion and torment"

In fact are not such confusion and torment precisely the characteristics of the great religious movement of confusions -- particularly at their inception.

Point 12 - Page 20 1st para

"Since they usually began their struggle for independence while in a small majority and are sustained... they are not likely to be repelled by the notion <u>that it is possible to force men to be free</u>"

I don't quite understand this pharas. Expand?

Point 13 - Page 28 - last sentence

"The disagreement, through to only too well"

There is an apparent nonsequitur here I think at least for the general reader. Should it be expanded or clarified/? ?

Point 14 - Page 31 - 1/2 third sen

"The Atlantic nations require above all a new philosophy <u>not a new policy.</u>"

[y]

Will not a new policy inevitably be developed as a consequence of
the new philosophy? Omit "not a new policy?"

Point 15 - Page 32 second para

"*But* the memory of European indépendance and American tutelage *
There was for me a bit of confusion here. Effectively resolved
by removing the *But*.

Point 16 - Page 32 para beginning

"This is precisely the attitude. Does this also imply decentralization
of decisionmaking. *within* Europe. Should this point be expanded
or meat more specifically.

Point 17 - Page 36 last sentence para 1

"It may develop a vested interest"

This seems to me a most sensitive point. But is it now *already*
true -- and has been for some time? It seems to me to account for
a good deal in past Soviet diplomatic history -- and perhaps in
Russian history before that.

Point 18 - Page 36 last sentence

"Postponing the choice in turn has the result"

The meaning of this final sentence to me. Expand?

Point 19 - Page 37 - para beginning

"In this effort America faces the long agenda of conceptual issues.

I think there is some redundancy in this para with points earlier
discussed in similar terms. This may be a good candidate for tightening
or cutting down on such if done.

[M]

Point 20 - Page 37 - 38

"Can anyone serious suppose that all tensions would disappear if the Soviet Union ......"

Certainly one cannot. As a half serious suggestion, to make the matter yet more dramatic, can anyone imagine the same thing is somehow, miraculously, the Soviet Union were simply to disappear?

Point 21 - Page 40 last sentence 1st para

"No more important challenge confront ......"

This is so visual that there should, I think, be areference back to the Gaither Committee suggestion back on page 15.

Point 22 - Page 43 first sentence

"But to have the charismatic ... heroic cast"

But they too of course are subject to the more normal evolutionary forces that affect the postures of the heads of state through changes in the natures of the states themselves. The cast is likely to change with time. Either the dreamed of goals will be attained at least in substantial part -- leading logically to a status quo psychology -- or they will not -- leading untimely to frustrations, bitterness and either new revolutionary movements by junior groups or to passive resignation -- not to further hope and aspiration.

There were all the specific comments I had and I have only one broader one. I think there can be general tightening in section V -- a central essential

Issue; the conceptual problem beginning on page 34.

Nowhere else do I sense any need for it.

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

ROBERT R. BOWIE, Director
HOLLIS B. CHENERY
SAMUEL P. HUNTINGTON
ALEX INKELES
HENRY A. KISSINGER
SEYMOUR M. LIPSET
EDWARD S. MASON
GUSTAV F. PAPANEK
THOMAS C. SCHELLING
RAYMOND VERNON

6 DIVINITY AVENUE
CAMBRIDGE
MASSACHUSETTS 02138

August 28, 1968

Dr. Caryl Haskins
Carnegie Institute of Washington
1530 P Street N.W.
Washington, D.C.

Dear Caryl:

Enclosed is the manuscript you were kind enough to agree to read. Could you return your comments -- Special Delivery -- to Room 1034, 50 Rockefeller Plaza, if they get there before September 6 otherwise to my New York apartment.

I have missed seeing you.

Many thanks,

Henry A. Kissinger

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

August 28, 1968

Dr. Carl Kayson, Director
Institute For Advanced Study
Princeton, New Jersey 08540

Dear Carl:

Here is the first draft of my piece on
Central Issues. I would be very grateful for
your comments.

The first section is now too pedantic and I
am planning an extensive revision. Would it be
possible to have your criticisms by September 9
as I am planning to leave for Europe.

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

August 28, 1968

Professor Richard N. Cooper
Department of Economics
Yale University
New Haven, Connecticut 06520

Dear Dick:

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

ROBERT R. BOWIE, Director
HOLLIS B. CHENERY
SAMUEL P. HUNTINGTON
ALEX INKELES
HENRY A. KISSINGER
SEYMOUR M. LIPSÉT
EDWARD S. MASON
GUSTAV F. PAPANEK
THOMAS C. SCHELLING
RAYMOND VERNON

August 28, 1968

Professor Francis M. Bator
John F. Kennedy School of Government
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138

Dear Francis:

Here is the first draft of my piece on
Central issues. I would be very grateful for your
comments.

The first section is now too pedantic
and I am planning an extensive revision. Would it
be possible to have your comments by September 9
as I am planning to leave for Europe.

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

August 28, 1968

Professor Paul Seabury
600 Alvarado
Berkeley, California 94705

Dear Paul:

Thank you for agreeing to be one of the
commentators. There are few people whose judgement
I value as much. Please feel free to make even seemingly
trivial editorial comments. Of course I look forward
especially to your detailed substantive comments.
This is a first draft which requires a lot of revision.
If it were not for the pressures of a deadline I would
prefer to send you a more finished product.

Because of this deadline -- and an imminent trip
to Europe -- I would be extremely grateful if I could
have your comments over next weekend (September 7-8).
Could you send one set to my office in Boston; the
other to 400 East 55th Street in New York.

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

August 28, 1968

Mr. John Campbell
Policy Planning Council
Department of State
Washington, D.C.

Dear John:

The first section is now too pedantic and I
am planning an extensive revision. Would it be
possible to have your criticisms by September 9.
as I am planning to leave for Europe.

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

August 28, 1968

Dr. Marshall D. Shulman, Director
Russian Institute
Columbia University
622 West 113th Street
New York, New York 10025

Dear Marshall:

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

August 28, 1968

Professor Edwin O. Reischauer
East Asian Research Center
Harvard University
1737 Cambridge Street
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Dear Ed:

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

August 28, 1968

Dr. Max F. Millikan, Director
Center For International Studies
Massachusetts Institute Of Technology
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139

Dear Max:

Best regards,

Henry A. Kissinger

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

August 28, 1968

Mr. Kermit Gordon, President
The Brookings Institute
775 Massachusetts Avenue N.W.
Washington D.C. 20036

Dear Kermit:

I am enclosing six copies of my piece. It is a rough first draft which I am already in the process of revising. If you or your colleagues have any comments I would be extremely grateful.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify my thinking.