HANS MORGENTHAU WAS MY TEACHER. AND HE WAS MY FRIEND. I MUST SAY THAT AT THE OUTSET BECAUSE SO MANY OBITUARIES HAVE STRESSED HIS DISAGREEMENT WITH POLICIES WITH WHICH I HAVE BECOME IDENTIFIED.

WE KNEW EACH OTHER FOR A DECADE AND A HALF BEFORE I ENTERED OFFICE. WE REMAINED IN SPORADIC CONTACT WHILE I SERVED THE GOVERNMENT. WE SAW MORE OF EACH OTHER AFTERWARDS.

IT IS NOT OFTEN POSSIBLE THAT ONE CAN IDENTIFY A SEMINAL FIGURE IN CONTEMPORARY POLITICAL THOUGHT OR IN ONE'S OWN LIFE. HANS MORGENTHAU MADE THE STUDY OF CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS A MAJOR AND SEPARATE DISCIPLINE. ALL OF US WHO TAUGHT THE SUBJECT AFTER HIM, HOWEVER MUCH WE DIFFERED FROM EACH OTHER, HAD TO START WITH HIS REFLECTIONS. NOT EVERYBODY AGREED WITH HANS MORGENTHAU; NOBODY COULD IGNORE HIM. AND ON A PERSONAL LEVEL HE AND I REMAINED CLOSE THROUGH ALL THE INTELLECTUAL UPHEAVALS AND DISPUTES OF TWO AND A HALF DECADES.

TO ESTABLISH INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AS A DISCIPLINE WAS NOT AN EASY MATTER IN THE UNITED STATES. FOR THE TEMPTATION TO

2

TREAT THE SUBJECT BY ANALOGY TO OUR DOMESTIC EXPERIENCE WAS
OVERWHELMING. THERE EXISTED IN AMERICA A WELL-DEVELOPED LITER-\ATURE ON INTERNATIONAL LAW THAT SAW INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS IN
TERMS OF LEGAL PROCESSES. THERE WAS A PRAGMATIC TRADITION OF
SOLVING ISSUES THAT AROSE "ON THEIR MERITS." THERE WAS THE
BELIEF IN AMERICA'S MORAL MISSION THAT HAD PRODUCED BOTH
ISOLATIONISM AND LATER ON GLOBAL INVOLVEMENT.

MORGENTHAU SOUGHT TO TRANSCEND ALL THESE DISPARATE TENDEN-
CIES. HE WAS PASSIONATELY CONVINCED THAT PEACE WAS A STATES-
MAN'S NOBLEST OBJECTIVE; BUT HE DID NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS YEARN-
ING ALONE WOULD AVOID WAR. HE WAS A LIBERAL IN HIS POLITICAL
VIEW BUT HE THOUGHT HIS CONVICTIONS REQUIRED NOT SIMPLY AN AF-
FIRMATION BUT SUFFICIENT STABILITY AT LEAST TO ENABLE MAN'S
HUMANE ASPIRATIONS TO PREVAIL. HE WAS WILLING TO CONFRONT THE
POLITICAL LEADER'S FUNDAMENTAL DILEMMA THAT MORAL AIMS CAN BE
REACHED ONLY IN STAGES, EACH OF WHICH IS IMPERFECT. MORALITY
PROVIDES THE COMPASS COURSE, THE INNER STRENGTH TO FACE THE
ABIGUITIES OF CHOICE.

3

SO HANS SET OUT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT HE CONSIDERED THE "REAL" WORLD OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICS, NOT AS HE WOULD LIKE IT TO BE BUT AS HE FOUND IT. HE WROTE HIS SEMINAL WORK ON POLITICS AMONG NATIONS, ANALYZING INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS IN TERMS OF POWER AND NATIONAL INTEREST. HE BELIEVED THAT A PROPER UNDERSTANDING OF THE NATIONAL INTEREST WOULD ILLUMINATE A COUNTRY'S POSSIBILITIES AS WELL AS DICTATE THE LIMITS TO WHICH IT COULD PUSH ITS ASPIRATIONS.

HANS WAS MUCH CRITICIZED FOR HIS ALLEGED AMORALITY IN THOSE DAYS. HE CRITICS DID NOT UNDERSTAND HIM. BEING HIMSELF PASSIONATE, HE DID NOT TRUST PASSION AS THE REGULATOR OF CONDUCT. BEING COMMITTED TO PEACE, HE WAS PREPARED TO ENTER THE COLD WORLD OF POWER POLITICS TO ACHIEVE IT.

IN THE SIXTIES HANS PROVED THAT HE WAS BEYOND THE MANIPULATION OF MILITARY CALCULATIONS. HE OPPOSED THE WAR IN VIETNAM WHEN IT WAS STILL SUPPORTED BY ALL FASHIONABLE OPINION. IN 1966 HE AND I DEBATED THE ISSUE IN LOOK MAGAZINE.

4

HE CONSIDERED AMERICA OVEREXTENDED, THE WAR UNWINNABLE, THE STAKES NOT WORTH THE COST. I MAINTAINED THAT THE SIZE OF OUR COMMITMENT HAD DETERMINED OUR STAKE; THAT WE HAD AN OBLIGATION TO SEEK OUR WAY OUT OF THE MORASS THROUGH NEGOTIATION RATHER THAN UNCONDITIONAL ABANDONMENT OF THE ENTERPRISE. HE WAS RIGHT IN HIS ANALYSIS, PROBABLY IN HIS POLICY CONCLUSIONS AS APPLIED TO 1966. THREE YEARS LATER--QUITE UNEXPECTEDLY-- I WAS FACED WITH THE PROBLEM AS A POLICYMAKER. WE BOTH STUCK TO OUR CONVICTIONS.

I WILL NOT DEBATE THEIR ULTIMATE MERIT IN THIS PEACE. BUT I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE SHARED ALMOST IDENTICAL PREMISES. WE BOTH BELIEVED AMERICA WAS OVEREXTENDED; WE BOTH SOUGHT A WAY OUT OF THE MORASS. HANS WANTED TO CUT THE GORDIAN KNOT IN ONE DRAMATIC MOVE; I CHOSE A DIFFERENT ROUTE. BUT WE WERE BOTH IN A WAY LONELY AMONG OUR ASSOCIATES. HANS IS NOT CORRECTLY UNDERSTOOD AS A PROTESTER. HE WAS A TEACHER TRYING TO BRING HOME TO HIS BELOVED ADOPTED COUNTRY THE LIMITS OF ITS POWER, JUST AS

5

EARLIER HE HAD INSISTED ON ITS CENTRAL ROLE. THROUGH ALL
THESE DISAGREEMENTS I NEVER CEASED ADMIRING HIM OR
REMEMBERING THE PROFOUND INTELLECTUAL DEBT I OWED HIM.

WITH THE END OF THE WAR OUR PATHS BECAME INCREASINGLY
PARALLEL AGAIN, THOUGH I DO NOT WISH TO BURDEN HANS' MEMORY
WITH THE ARMY OF MY CRITICS. HANS REMAINED ALWAYS HIMSELF:
CLEAR IN HIS PERCEPTION, UNCOMPROMISING IN HIS INSISTENCE ON
GETTING TO THE ESSENCE OF A PROBLEM. HE MEANT MUCH TO ME.

A WORD MUST BE SAID ABOUT HANS AS A HUMAN BEING. FEW
EMINENT MEN CORRESPOND TO THEIR IMAGE. HANS MADE HIS REPUTATION
AS AN ANALYST OF POWER, BUT HE WAS A GENTLE, LOVING MAN.

HE WAS A GREAT TEACHER, YET QUITE SHY. HE HAD A MARVELOUS,
SLIGHTLY SARDONIC SENSE OF HUMOR WHICH NEVER STOOPED TO THE
MALICIOUS. YET HE WAS SLIGHTLY TENTATIVE--AT LEAST IN HIS
DEALINGS WITH ME--IN SHOWING THIS SIDE OF HIMSELF. HE WOULD
MAKE A WITTY REMARK WITH AN ABSOLUTELY STRAIGHT FACE, PEERING
FROM BEHIND HIS BUSHY EYEBROWS TO SEE WHAT THE RESPONSE WOULD
BE. ONLY WHEN HE SAW THAT HIS SALLY HAD BEEN UNDERSTOOD

6

WOULD HIS WHOLE FACE CREASE IN THE SMILE OF A SLIGHTLY
MISCHIEVOUS LITTLE BOY. HE WAS A LOVABLE MAN.

HANS MORGENTHAU WAS DEEPLY CONSCIOUS OF HIS JEWISH
HERITAGE. HE KNEW THAT NO PEOPLE WAS MORE LIKELY TO BE THE
VICTIM OF INJUSTICE AND PASSION. HE THUS FELT A SPECIAL
OBLIGATION TO RESIST INTOLERANCE AND HATRED. AND HE UNDER-
STOOD THAT IN THIS BATTLE HE MUST NEVER STOOP TO THE METHODS
HE WAS COMBATTING. HE WAS A NOBLE MAN.

I SAW HANS FOR THE LAST TIME AT BREAKFAST A FEW MONTHS AGO.
HE HAD GROWN QUITE FRAIL, THOUGH MENTALLY HE WAS AS ALERT AS
EVER. HIS PROFESSORSHIP AT THE NEW SCHOOL HAD JUST ENDED.
HE SPOKE OF HOW MUCH TEACHING MEANT TO HIM. EVERYONE MUST FEEL
HE MAKES A DIFFERENCE TO THE WORLD, HE SAID. AND HIS VOCATION
WAS TEACHING, WHICH HE HOPED TO CONTINUE. I TOLD HIM THAT
HE HAD ALREADY MADE A BIG DIFFERENCE TO THE WORLD; HE DID NOT
HAVE TO PROVE HIMSELF CONSTANTLY. HE DID NOT QUITE BELIEVE IT.
HIS LIFE WAS HIS WORK AND AS HE SAID ON ANOTHER OCCASION, HE SAW
NO SENSE IN EXTENDING THE ONE BY CUTTING DOWN ON THE OTHER.

7

WE PROMISED EACH OTHER TO MEET REGULARLY. IT WAS NOT
TO BE. HE SETTLED OUR LITTLE DIALOGUE BY HIS SUDDEN DEATH.
THERE WOULD BE NO GAP BETWEEN HANS MORGENTHAU'S LIFE AND HIS
WORK; HE HAD MADE A DIFFERENCE.

AND THE NATURE OF THAT DIFFERENCE IS BEST SHOWN IN THE
SORROW OF HIS FRIENDS AND IN THE FACT THAT ALL WHO REMEMBER
HANS MORGENTHAU RECALL HIS PASSION FOR JUSTICE, HIS FERTILE
INTELLECT, HIS WARMTH AND HIS HONESTY. IT WILL BE A LONELIER
WORLD WITHOUT HIM.

THE NEW REPUBLIC - August 2 & 9, 1980

A gentle analyst of power.

Hans Morgenthau

Hans Morgenthau was my teacher. And he was my friend. I must say that at the outset because so many obituaries have stressed his disagreement with policies with which I have become identified. We knew each other for a decade and a half before I entered office. We remained in sporadic contact while I served the government. We saw more of each other afterward.

It is not often that one can identify a seminal figure in contemporary political thought or in one's own life. Hans Morgenthau made the study of contemporary international relations a major discipline. All of us who taught the subject after him, however much we differed from one another, had to start with his reflections. Not everybody agreed with Hans Morgenthau, but nobody could ignore him. We remained close through all the intellectual upheavals and disputes of two and a half decades.

Establishing international relations as a discipline was not an easy matter in the United States. For the temptation to treat the subject by analogy to our domestic experience was overwhelming. There existed in America a well-developed literature on international law that saw international relations in terms of legal processes. There was a pragmatic tradition of solving issues that arose "on their merits." There was the belief in America's moral mission that had produced both isolationism and, later on, global involvement.

Morgenthau sought to transcend all these disparate tendencies. He was passionately convinced that peace was a statesman's noblest objective, but he did not believe that this yearning alone would avoid war. He was a liberal in his political view but he thought his convictions required not simply an affirmation but sufficient stability at least to enable man's humane aspirations to prevail. He was willing to confront the political leader's fundamental dilemma—that moral aims can be reached only in stages, each of which is imperfect. Morality provides the compass course, the inner strength to face the ambiguities of choice.

So Hans set out to understand what he considered the "real" world of international politics, not as he would like it to be, but as he found it. His seminal work, *Politics Among Nations*, analyzed international relations in terms of power and national interest. He believed that a proper understanding of the national interest would illuminate a country's possibilities as well as dictate the limits of its aspirations.

Hans was much criticized for his alleged amorality in those days. His critics did not understand him. Being himself passionate, he did not trust passion as the regulator of conduct. Being committed to peace, he was prepared to enter the cold world of power politics to achieve it.

In the 1960s, Hans proved that he was beyond the manipulation of military calculations. He opposed the war in Vietnam when it was still supported by all fashionable opinion. In 1966 he and I debated the issue in *Look* magazine. He considered America overextended, the war unwinnable, the stakes not worth the cost. I maintained that the size of our commitment had determined our stake, that we had an obligation to seek our way out of the morass through negotiation rather than unconditional abandonment of the enterprise. He was right in his analysis, probably in his policy conclusions as applied to 1966. Three years later—quite unexpectedly—I was faced with the problem as a policy maker. We both stuck to our convictions.

I will not debate their ultimate merit here. But I think it is important to understand that we shared almost identical premises. We both believed America was over extended; we both sought a way out of the dilemma. Hans wanted to cut the Gordian knot in one dramatic move; I chose a different route. But we were both in a way lonely among our associates. Hans is not correctly understood as a protester. He was a teacher trying to bring home to his beloved adopted country the limits of its power, just as earlier he had insisted on its central role. Through all these disagreements I never ceased admiring him or remembering the profound intellectual debt I owed him.

With the end of the war, our paths became increasingly parallel again, though I do not wish to burden Hans's memory with the army of my critics. Hans remained always himself: clear in his perception, uncompromising in his insistence on getting to the essence of a problem. He meant much to me.

A word must be said about Hans as a human being. Few eminent men correspond to their images. Hans made his reputation as an analyst of power, but he was a gentle, loving man. He was a great teacher, yet quite shy. He had a marvelous, slightly sardonic sense of humor which never stooped to the malicious. Yet he was slightly tentative—at least in his dealings with me—in showing this side of himself. He would make a witty remark with an absolutely straight face, peering from behind his bushy eyebrows to see what the response would be. Only when he saw that his sally had been understood would his whole face crease in the smile of a mischievous little boy. He was a lovable man.

Hans Morgenthau was deeply conscious of his Jewish heritage. He knew that no people was more likely to be the victim of injustice and passion. He thus felt a special obligation to resist intolerance and hatred. And he understood that in this battle he must never stoop to the methods he was combatting. He was a noble man.

I saw Hans for the last time at breakfast a few weeks ago. He had grown quite frail, though mentally he was as alert as ever. His professorship at the New School had just ended. He spoke of how much teaching meant to him. Everyone must feel he makes a difference to the world, he said. And his vocation was teaching, which he hoped to continue. I told him that he already had made a

-2-

big difference to the world; he did not have to prove
himself constantly. He did not quite believe it. His life was
his work. As he said on another occasion, he saw no sense
in extending the one by cutting down on the other.

We promised to meet regularly. It was not to be. He
settled our little dialogue by his sudden death. There
would be no gap between Hans Morgenthau's life and his
work; he had made a difference.

And the nature of that difference is best shown in the
sorrow of his friends and in the fact that all who
remember Hans Morgenthau recall his passion for justice,
his fertile intellect, his warmth, and his honesty. It will be
a lonelier world without him.

Henry Kissinger

*Henry Kissinger* is the author of *White House Years* (Little, Brown).

Continuation of House Proceedings of July 31, 1980,
Appears in This Issue After Today's House Proceedings

Congressional Record

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 96th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION

Vol. 126

WASHINGTON, FRIDAY, AUGUST 1, 1980

No. 122

Senate

HANS MORGENTHAU

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, in this week's issue of New Republic, Dr. Henry Kissinger, the former Secretary of State, has written a moving and enlightening memoir of the life of Hans Morgenthau, who was his friend and teacher and who was indeed a teacher to a whole generation of Americans who have studied international affairs and international relations.

Few men have so marked an age by their work. He was, indeed, a seminal figure, as Dr. Kissinger states.

I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Kissinger's eulogy, if I may use that term—and it is an appropriate one—be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

HANS MORGENTHAU

(By Henry Kissinger)

It is not often that one can identify a seminal figure in contemporary political thought or in one's own life. Hans Morgenthau made the study of contemporary international relations a major discipline. All of us who taught the subject after him, however much we differed from one another, had to start with his reflections. Not everybody agreed with Hans Morgenthau, but nobody could ignore him. We remained close through all the intellectual upheavals and disputes of two and a half decades,

I will not debate their ultimate merit here. But I think it is important to understand that we shared almost identical premises. We both believed America was overextended; we both sought a way out of the dilemma. Hans wanted to cut the Gordian knot in one dramatic move; I chose a different route. But we were both in a way lonely among our associates. Hans is not correctly understood as a protester. He was a teacher trying to bring home to his beloved adopted country the limits of its power, just as earlier he had insisted on its central role. Through all these disagreements I never ceased admiring him

With the end of the war, our paths became increasingly parallel again, though I do not wish to burden Hans' memory with the army of my critics. Hans remained always himself: clear in his perception, uncompromising in his insistence on getting to the essence of a problem. He meant much to me.

I saw Hans for the last time at breakfast a few weeks ago. He had grown quite frail, through mentally he was as alert as ever. His professorship at the New School had just ended. He spoke of how much teaching meant to him. Everyone must feel he makes a difference to the world, he said. And his vocation was teaching, which he hoped to continue. I told him that he already had made a big difference to the world; he did not have to prove himself constantly. He did not quite believe it. His life was his work. As he said on another occasion, he saw no sense in extending the one by cutting down on the other.

For The New Republic

We knew each other for a decade and a half before I
entered office. We remained in sporadic contact while I
served the government. We saw more of each other afterwards.

It is not often possible that one can identify a seminal
figure in contemporary political thought or in one's own life.
Hans Morgenthau made the study of contemporary international
relations a major and separate discipline. All of us who
taught the subject after him, however much we differed from
each other, had to start with his reflections. Not everybody
agreed with Hans Morgenthau; nobody could ignore him. And on
a personal level he and I remained close through all the
intellectual upheavals and disputes of two and a half decades.

To establish international relations as a discipline

2

was not an easy matter in the United States. For the
temptation to treat the subject by analogy to our domestic
experience was overwhelming. There existed in America a
well-developed literature on international law that saw
international relations in terms of legal processes. There
was a pragmatic tradition of solving issues that arose "on
their merits." There was the belief in America's moral
mission that had produced both isolationism and later on
global involvement.

Morgenthau sought to transcend all these disparate tendencies. He
was passionately convinced that peace was a statesman's
noblest objective; but he did not believe that this yearning alone
would avoid war. He was a liberal in his political view but he
thought his convictions required not simply an affirmation
but sufficient stability at least to enable man's humane
aspirations to prevail. He was willing to confront the
political leader's fundamental dilemma that moral aims can be

3

So Hans set out to understand what he considered the
"real" world of international politics, not as he would like
it to be but as he found it. He wrote his seminal work on
*Politics among Nations*, analyzing international relations...
in terms of power and national interest. He believed that
a proper understanding of the national interest would
illuminate a country's possibilities as well as dictate the
limits to which it could push its aspirations.

In the Sixties Hans proved that he was beyond the

manipulation of military calculations. He opposed the war
in Vietnam when it was still supported by all fashionable
opinion. In 1966 he and I debated the issue in *LOOK*
magazine. He considered America overextended, the war
unwinnable, the stakes not worth the cost. I maintained
that the size of our commitment had determined our stake; that
we had an obligation to seek our way out of the morass
through negotiation rather than unconditional abandonment of
the enterprise. He was right in his analysis, probably in
his policy conclusions as applied to 1966. Three years
later--quite unexpectedly--I was faced with the problem as a
policymaker. We both stuck to our convictions.

I will not debate their ultimate merit in this space.
But I think it is important to understand that we shared
almost identical premises. We both believed America was
overextended; we both sought a way out of the morass. Hans
wanted to cut the Gordian knot in one dramatic move; I chose
a different route. But we were both in a way lonely among

5

With the end of the war our paths became increasingly
parallel again, though I do not wish to burden Hans' memory
with the army of my critics. Hans remained always himself:
clear in his perception, uncompromising in his insistence on
getting to the essence of a problem. He meant much to me.

A word must be said about Hans as a human being. Few
eminent men correspond to their image. Hans made his reputation
as an analyst of power, but he was a gentle, loving man.
He was a great teacher, yet quite shy. He had a marvelous,
slightly sardonic sense of humor which never stooped to the
malicious. Yet he was slightly tentative--at least in his

6

dealings with me--in showing this side of himself. He would
make a witty remark with an absolutely straight face, peering
from behind his bushy eyebrows to see what the response would
be. Only when he saw that his sally had been understood
would his whole face crease in the smile of a slightly
mischievous little boy. He was a lovable man.

Hans Morgenthau was deeply conscious of his Jewish
heritage. He knew that no people was more likely to be the
victim of injustice and passion. He thus felt a special
obligation to resist intolerance and hatred. And he under-
stood that in this battle he must never stoop to the methods
he was combatting. He was a noble man.

7

was teaching, which he hoped to continue. I told him that
he had already made a big difference to the world; he did
not have to prove himself constantly. He did not quite believe
it. His life was his work and as he said on another occasion,
he saw no sense in extending the one by cutting down on the
other.

We promised each other to meet regularly. It was not
to be. He settled our little dialogue by his sudden death.
There would be no gap between Hans Morgenthau's life and his
work; he had made a difference.

And the nature of that difference is best shown in the
sorrow of his friends and in the fact that all who remember
Hans Morgenthau recall his passion for justice, his fertile intellec
his warmth and his honesty. It will be a lonelier world
without him.