Nancy L. Hoepli
6 West 9th Street
New York 11, N. Y.

Home tel.: Oregon 4-5639
Messages can be left at:
Regent 4-4411

RESUME

Born May 23, 1930.

EXPERIENCE

New York Herald Tribune, 1957 to present.

Assistant to News Development Editor, responsible for advance planning. This department was created by the former editor to modernize the paper by inaugurating new features and layout. We introduced four new daily columns, series and features. My work has included:

**Advance planning:** originated ideas for series, feature stories, profiles of men in the news, subjects for Herald Tribune round-table interviews.

**Writing:** wrote a daily column of brief news items based on behind-the-scenes reports from foreign, national and local reporters; precedes (background summaries) for page one stories; book reviews and book notes; sub-heads, precedes and shirttails for series and special columns.

**Reporting:** interviewed city officials, social workers, labor union officials in connection with series on garment industry, Puerto Rican migration, housing. Researched articles on hospitals, slums, Buildings Department, city welfare and employment opportunities for high school and college graduates.

**Editing:** book editing for serialization; edited weekly columns, feature articles, round-table interviews.

**Production:** helped design, make up and paste up dummies for a tabloid size, 24-page Sunday news magazine and a 24-page Sunday book review magazine.

**Publicity:** during the December newspaper strike was part of two-man team which supplied seventeen local radio stations daily with 25 to 30 news releases of theatre and movie reviews, editorials, syndicated columns and stock market reports.

U.S. Mission to the United Nations, 1954-57.

Staff Aide, Office of the U.S. Representative on UN Economic and Social Council. Duties included liaison between State Department and UN Secretariat; arranging briefings for members of Departments of State, Commerce, Treasury, etc., with UN Secretariat and delegates of 80-odd member nations; conference officer for delegations to UN commissions in New York and Geneva; research for delegates; answered correspondence for Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey during his term as U.S. Delegate to the General Assembly.

American Embassy, Paris, and American Consulate General, Geneva, 1952-53.

Bilingual secretary on U.S. delegations to UN conferences. French-English secretary to Mrs. Oswald B. Lord, U. S. Representative on Human Rights Commission, and on delegations to UNESCO, Economic and Social Council, International Labor Organization, etc.

Nancy L. Hoepli - 2

Textile Workers Union of America, C.I.O., 1951-52.

Secretary to Directors of Insurance & Health and Political Action.

## EDUCATION

1947-51 Vassar College, B.A.

1949-50 University of Paris (junior year)

1950 University of Zurich (summer school of international studies)

1937-47 Nightingale-Bamford School, New York City

## LANGUAGES

French Speak, read and write with proficiency

German Fair knowledge

## OTHER ACTIVITIES

Member, Scholarship Committee of Vassar Club of New York

Member, Alumni Association of Institute of Political Science of Paris

Assistant to professor of advanced painting, N.Y.U. School of Education, 1958-59

Lived and traveled in Western Europe, chiefly in Switzerland and France. Born in Switzerland. Lived in France until 1937. Spent junior year of college in Paris, and worked in Paris 1952-53. Worked in Geneva in 1953 and returned three summers. Visited Algeria, spring 1950, and Mexico, summer 1958.

## REFERENCES

Arthur T. Hadley, former Assistant to the Executive Editor, New York Herald Tribune.

Dr. John C. Baker, President of Ohio University and former U.S. Representative on the UN Economic and Social Council.

Forrest D. Murden, Jr., Assistant to the Chairman of the Board, Standard Oil of New Jersey, and formerly with U.S. Mission to UN.

Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

Ben. Hubert H. Humbrey, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
Standard Oil of New Jersey, and formerly with U.S. Mission to UN.
Forrest D. Munden, Jr., Assistant to the Chairman of the Board,
U.S. Representative on the UN Economic and Social Council.
Dr. John C. Baker, President of Ohio University and former
New York Herald Tribune.
Arthur T. Hadley, former Assistant to the Executive Editor,

REFERENCES

OTHER ACTIVITIES

German Fair knowledge
French read and write with proficiency

LANGUAGES

1934-47 Nightingale-Bawford School, New York City
    studies)
1920 University of Zurich (summer school of international
1949-50 University of Paris (Junior year)
1941-47 Assar College, B.V.

EDUCATION

**Textfile Workers Union of America, C.I.O., 1931-35.**

Nancy L. Hoebli - S

ROOM 5600
30 ROCKEFELLER PLAZA

To: Henry
FROM: Nancy

19

If you want help on setting up
appointments with Benedict,
Keehn and Kelly tomorrow when you
see what your real situation is let
me know.

Rod is going to tell Kly to show there
11:30 a.m.
at ten o'clock any way.
un 4-4877

MEMORANDUM

October 8, 1959

TO: Mr. Henry A. Kissinger

FROM: Roswell B. Perkins R.B.

SUBJECT: Nancy Hoepli

This gal sounds excellent to me. Although I have not seen her, I have talked to Arthur Hadley, her previous boss and he gives her the highest recommendation. I would like to put her to work immediately on setting up a clipping service of joint value to our national studies project and to the political activities at 55th Street.

When she has set it up, she could concentrate more on straight research. My own inclination is to think we could use both her and someone like Chester Scott Kelly.

Therefore, if you like her and if you agree with my thoughts on this matter, perhaps you should suggest that she call me Monday morning at 10:30 a.m. and come see me.

Chester Scott Kelly

I have asked him to come to 22 West 55th Street to see you at 11:30 a.m. Friday morning UNLESS you call him and tell him that you can't see him then.

NUMBER: University 4-4877

October 30, 1959

MEMORANDUM FOR MR. KISSINGER

Attached are draft "format pages" for your papers which have
been commissioned. Why don't you look through them, raise any questions
and we will see if we can get them finalized so that you will have a
standard set up.

I think Rod will want the same for the domestic papers, so could
you give him a look.

Roughly I would say that you should keyby geographical area
as we discussed and would therefore suggest:

Africa
Defense
Europe (Western)
Europe (Eastern)

Far East

International-General

This would have all those miscellaneous papers for
the present. You may want to break that later into
categories if it gets much bigger.

Latin America

Middle East

Soviet Union

Nancy

SUMMARY

N. Hoepli

11/13/59

# NATO: Problems of Security and Collaboration

NATO is primarily a defensive military alliance designed to prevent the extension of Communist control in Europe. The dual task of NATO's military strategy is to maintain the external security of its partners and to secure their internal collaboration. Under the provisions of the North Atlantic Treaty (April 4, 1949) the U.S. guaranteed to defend Europe, and the allies were committed to strengthen their forces under a unified strategic command. The strategic assumptions of NATO--U.S. massive retaliation based on atomic monopoly and Europe's prior task of rebuilding and strengthening her economy,--were shaken by Soviet emergence as an atomic power in August 1949 and by the Korean War.

**Impact of Soviet nuclear power:** The implications for NATO strategy of Soviet expansion of an atomic device are fourfold: 1) the ability of NATO ground forces to protect allies in total war becomes dubious; 2) NATO needs increased ground forces to counter less-than-massive aggressions; 3) American troops stationed in Europe are necessary as guarantee that U.S. will defend Europe; 4) U.S. must decide whether to share her exclusive control of strategic striking power or help her allies gain their own.

**Impact of Korean War:** The Korean War precipitated allied effort to create forces-in-being capable of supporting a "forward strategy." As the war waned fear of military aggression in Europe declined and the pre-Korea concept of maximum security at minimum cost gained ascendancy. Europe became more dependent on the U.S. to deter major aggression while Soviet nuclear power decreased the credibility of America's commitment to defend Europe.

**Adoption of tactical nuclear weapons:** The North Atlantic Council in 1954 authorized use of tactical nuclear weapons against conventional attack to defend Europe at a cost allies were willing to pay. Subsequently NATO rejected the use of tactical nuclear weapons except as a deterrent and also rejected limited war strategy. The only "legitimate" and reliable basis for limiting warfare, NATO governments contended, was to distinguish between use of conventional and nuclear weapons. They turned their attention to ways to enlarge and diversify the NATO Shield.

**NATO's new emphasis on shield:** A Shield with a minimum of 30 divisions of forward ground forces, according to Norstad, would enable NATO to respond to "less than ultimate incidents with something other than massive retaliation," i.e. with "some intermediate means." By enabling NATO to hold a limited probing action long enough to "force a conscious decision on the part of the Russians that they either will or will not go to war," the Shield would provide military and political flexibility. It remains doubtful that unless the trend toward nuclear dependence can be reversed or a convincing limited nuclear war strategy can be developed NATO could avoid choosing between passive acquiescence or nuclear devastation--even with 30 divisions. At present there are 20 nominally combat-ready divisions.

**Nuclear diffusion:** Two approaches to security which could threaten the alliance are gaining favor: 1) acquisition of independent nuclear

- 2 -

capability, and 2) agreement with Soviet Union to change the military and political status quo in the center of Europe. The first approach offers the following incentives: military deterrent in cases where U.S. unlikely to act; greater protection against Soviet "nuclear black-mail;" support for political decisions which the U.S. is not likely to back; increased bargaining power vis-a-vis U.S. et al.; enhancement of national prestige, and more security at less cost. Counteracting these incentives are the expense and technical difficulties; American laws against the dissemination of atomic information and devices; fear of increased vulnerability, and popular aversion to nuclear weapons.

One way to ameliorate the problem of nuclear diffusion might be allied agreement not to use nuclear weapons except in response to nuclear attack. Such a policy to work would have to be supported by a sufficiently invulnerable strategic force and an increased capacity for conventional resistance. The U.S. could exact as the price for receiving nuclear information and equipment strengthening of the Shield-- possibly a NATO nuclear community. At best, the prospect and actuality of nuclear diffusion will be a disruptive influence.

**Disengagement:** Almost any zone of withdrawal would impair the military security of Western Europe. It would probably be impossible to base effective supporting forces in the Lowlands and France. Furthermore, the present proximity of German and U.S. troops is probably a deterrent to war.

**Arms limitation and control** would not reduce the possibility of war resulting from internal instability of states. While Rapacki Plan would minimize risk of denuclearized zone states initiating nuclear war, it would not preclude tactical nuclear weapons being brought into war from outside zones.

**A political settlement** concerning the two Germanies would touch on a basic source of tension. A reunified Germany in center of Europe would be a disturbing influence diplomatically and add to European political instability. It can be argued that it is in both the West's and East's interests to maintain a divided Germany. If German pressure for unification becomes decisive, we must be ready to propose an orderly process of unification by some form of free elections before withdrawal of troops and after settlement of German-Polish border.

The only political guarantee the West can rely on is one whose violation the West can redress by political and military counter-action. But there would be considerable risk of Soviet violating an agreement and we would be under great handicap to respond effectively.

Although there is no foreseeable prospect of disengagement, arms limitation or reunification scheme that the Soviet would approve and the West accept, the U.S. should formulate a scheme compatible with legitimate interest of all parties. Depending on German pressure for reunification such a formula may be an indispensable diplomatic asset and is likely to be a strategic imperative.

The sine que non for the U.S.: the security and cohesion of NATO supported by a flexible and diversified military capability which

Room 629
10 Rockefeller Plaza
New York 20, New York

November 18, 1959

Dear Dr. Kissinger:

Enclosed are copies of two Wallace speeches:
his "I Shall Run" speech of December 29, 1947, and
his acceptance speech after election as Progressive
Party candidate on July 24, 1948.

The Public Library will mail to you tomorrow
evening a copy of Wallace's "Open Letter to Stalin"
which was published in the N. Y. Times on May 12, 1948.

You asked to be reminded to request a bibliography
and a list of authorities from Professor Osgood.

I look forward to seeing you Tuesday.

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
Harvard University
Center for International Affairs
6 Divinity Avenue
Cambridge 38, Massachusetts

DNA Research
Room 629
10 Rockefeller Plaza
New York 20, New York

November 20, 1959

Dear Dr. Kissinger:

I have looked over my summary of the Osgood
paper on NATO and have decided it does not lend
itself to organization along the lines of the
guidance outline. Professor Osgood examines six
separate problems. If I follow the outline I would
have to state the basic facts relating to the six
issues; next the trends relating to the six issues;
the problems and significance of each of the six,
etc. This becomes cumbersome, awkward and unclear.
I believe it is preferable to tackle each subject
separately and as a unit.

I notice the guidance outline states, with
regard to recommendations for public policy, that
"this is perhaps the least important section."
This was not my understanding. I tried to sort out
of the various alternatives enumerated by Professor
Osgood the ones he felt most valid and the recommenda-
tions he made based on those alternatives. Would
you like me to add a few more pages listing all
alternatives listed by him? I think not. I believe
the summary in its present form will be adequate for
purposes of drafting the final position paper.

Have a pleasant Thanksgiving!

November 20, 1959

TO: Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
FROM: Nancy Hoepli

1. Enclosed is a _tentative_ schedule. I'm not sure how realistic it is. However, it covers the waterfront.

2. Enclosed also is a bibliography on population. I have received the three special studies that were prepared on this subject.

3. I am also sending on to you brief summaries of four NATO papers. I have written you a separate note about the Osgood summary.

4. I haven't spoken to Mr. George Franklin yet. He was ill this week. Will call him Monday.

Research help is badly needed. I understand you will be in New York on November 30 to interview candidates. I recommend two in particular: Joan Danforth Cook who is a former student of yours, has had two years' experience on the Trib as a reporter and would know how to dig and evaluate. I also recommend June Goldthwait who has had eight years' UN experience and has an M.A. from Fletcher.

## POPULATION

### Bibliography

* *Population: an International Dilemma.* Population Council. (will be mailed to this office)

* *Population Growth and Economic Development in Low Income Countries: A Case Study of India's Prospects.* By Ansley J. Coale and Edgar M. Hoover. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1958.

* *The Study of Population.* By Philip Morris Hauser. U of Chic Press 1959. (Standard textbook): *Population Problems*. By Warren Simpson Thompson. New York: McGraw Hill, 1953.

* *Determinants and Consequences of Population Trends.* UN Population Studies. New York.

* *Population and Progress in the Far East.* By Warren Simpson Thompson. Chicago: U. of Chicago Press, 1959.

* *Population and World Politics.* Edited by Philip M. Hauser. Glencoe ( Ill.): Free Press, 1958.

* These are particularly recommended by Dr. Kirk.

### Authorities

Kingsley Davis - Columbia (see special study)

Irene B. Taeuber-Office of Population Research, Princeton

Ansley J. Coale- " "

Edgar M. Hoover- " "

Philip M. Hauser- University of Chicago

SUMMARY

N. Hoepli

11/20/59

NATO: POLITICAL CONSULTATION

Basic Facts and Trends:

There is distrust on part of smaller nations of the "big"
powers, e.g. current unhappiness in NATO Council because of
bilateral and trilateral summit meeting arrangements.

U.S. Position:

We do much reporting to NATO but little actual consulting.
U.S. endorses principle of equality of all members but does not
apply it by consulting others on political matters.

Recommendations for Public Policy:

U.S. should take lead, even in face of U.K. and French
opposition, to promote NATO political consultation, i.e., we
should keep partners informed, hear their views, and take them
into consideration before making final decisions.

SUMMARY
N. Hoepli

11/20/59

NATO: U. S. LEADERSHIP

Basic Facts and Trends:

U.S. has inherent responsibility for leadership in NATO Council as biggest member with greatest resources and carrying bulk of defense load.

U.S. Position:

U.S. position is one of supreme courtesy. By striving to prove all members are equal, we let allies speak in discussions before expressing any view. Result: we are often put in defensive position.

U.S. should adopt clear-cut policy of exercising leadership in affairs of NATO Council, its committees, its International Staff and subordinate organs and agencies, just as it now exercises leadership in NATO's two highest military commands. We should follow practice of speaking early in each discussion. By taking lead in debate, we would provide a rallying point for other nations.

SUMMARY

N. Hoepli

11/20/59

# NATO: AUTHORITY TO EMPLOY NUCLEAR WEAPONS

## Basic Facts and Trends:

NATO has never established any policy for the initial use of nuclear weapons, either strategic or tactical, apparently for two reasons: political difficulties in establishing policy and desirability of leaving Soviet in the dark.

No one has authority to order NATO forces to employ nuclear weapons. Only authority is to plan on use of nuclear from the outset of hostilities.

**U.S. Position:** We have opposed any discussion of problem by NATO.

## Recommendations for Public policy:

We should not continue to assume political difficulties prevent us from having a policy governing NATO use of atomic weapons. We should consider in a restricted forum (less than full membership) the pros and cons of establishing a policy. The first step should be exploratory. If over-riding political factors are found in course of exploration, we could revert to status quo.

SUMMARY
N. Hoepli

11/20/59

# NATO FORCE REQUIREMENTS

## Basic Facts and Trends:

Force goals have remained substantially unchanged and have never been met. The percentage of achievement while not too bad numerically is low in effectiveness. NATO's true strength and deterrent capacity in terms of manning level, equipment, state of training and logistic support are inadequate.

The trend toward further ineffectiveness results from the impact of "peaceful coexistence" and rising costs of defense.

## Recommendations for Public Policy:

1. U.S. should have a specific NATO military aid program designed to help member nations meet NATO force requirements; aid to any particular nation should be contingent on satisfactory efforts on the part of that nation.

2. The Program should be planned and implemented by a U.S. officer who is also part of the higher NATO military organization.

November 23, 1959

Miss Nancy Hoepli
Room 629
10 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, New York

Dear Nancy:

Thank you for your two letters. If a paper does not lend itself to summary in the form of our guidance outline I think you should summarize it as best you can. I appreciated the summaries of the four papers which you sent me, but you did not tell me what these papers were. Your schedule looks sensible.

I am flattered that any former student of mine would still want to work for me. Why don't you set an interview with Miss Cook and Miss Goldthwait for when I come to New York? I will arrive around 3:00 on Monday and can stay until around 3:00 on Tuesday. I would not mind working late on Monday. Also, you and I should set aside an hour.

Enclosed is a manuscript by Skip Koons, which I would like to have typed in several copies or run off on mats by the time I get to New York on Monday. I am not suggesting that you should do this, as you should spend your time on more cerebral things, but I do not know my secretary's name, or even if I have one. Could you also make, or have the secretary make, a reservation at the Plaza for Monday night?

Kind regards.

Henry V. Krasinger

Sincerely yours,

Kind regards.

right?
the secretary make, a reservation at the class for Monday
name, or even if I have one. Conf'd you sjao make, or have
time on more earier things, put I do not know my secretary's
answering that you should go there, as you should send your
wife to the time I get to New York on Monday. I am not
would like to have fied in several copies or run off on
Envoived is a manuscript by Skib Koons, which I
VSO, you and I should get same an hom.

3:00 on Tuesday. I would not mind working late on Monday.
I will arrive around 3:00 on Monday and can get a lift around
with Miss Cook and Miss Goffmait for when I come to New York?

would still want to work for me. Why don't you get an interview
I am flattered that you and your student of mine
envelope.

envelope.
did not tell me what these papers were. Your envelope looks
the summary of the course here which you sent me, put you
I think you should summarize it as best you can. I abstracted
not find itself to summary in the form of an outline
Thank you for your two letters. It a paper does

Dear Mancy:

New York, New York
10 Rockefeller Plaza
Room 250
Miss Nancy Hoedlt

November 53, 1923

MEMORANDUM

TO: Dr. Kissinger
December 3, 1959

From: Nancy Hoepli

Re: Procedures for Preparing Research, Summaries and Position Papers on International Affairs

In our conversation the other morning, we agreed on the
following program and procedures:

1. Schedule. The attached schedule, which you have approved, is divided into three parts: basic research, summaries and position papers. All the research and position papers must be completed according to this schedule. The time table for the writing of summaries, however, is tentative and will depend on the promptness with which the papers are submitted.

2. Researchers. The schedule calls for four researchers working full time beginning December 7. Three researchers will be doing basic research while a fourth writes summaries and prepares preliminary position papers. Emergency requests and updating of preliminary position papers will also be assigned to the fourth person. As I envisage it, each researcher will be concerned with two or three major areas and will prepare summaries and preliminary position papers when these are not assigned to a speech writer.

3. Procedures. We agreed that my responsibilities will include:

(a) follow-up to see that papers are submitted on schedule;

(b) making certain that summaries are prepared upon receipt of the papers. The summary will be submitted to you before it is duplicated and distributed.

(c) I will allocate research and bear responsibility for the product. At the end of each week I will submit to you the research which falls due.

(d) I will be responsible for seeing that preliminary position papers on the major foreign affairs areas are prepared on schedule. The preliminary position papers will be submitted to you for your approval before being reproduced.

Because the schedule is a tight one, it is important to adhere to it closely and avoid extraneous projects. As you requested, I will clear any emergency demands for research (e.g. from speech writers or 55th Street) with you. If the schedule is followed, all the basic research will have been completed before a preliminary position paper is written.

-2-

4. Delegation of Responsibility. As you pointed out, it is easier for you to work with one person rather than four. Therefore, we agreed I would be responsible for the research in international affairs. When a conference is held on a specific position paper, however, the researcher who has done the work on the area covered by the paper will be brought in for consultation.

****

If the above is a fair statement of our understanding, would you please initial this enclosed copy and return it to me. I will pass it on to Dr. Craig who has read this draft.

December 3, 1959

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
Harvard University
6 Divinity Avenue
Cambridge 38, Mass.

Dear Dr. Kissinger:

1. Summaries: The Koons summary of Professor Osgood's paper has been reproduced and distributed. I am sending you under separate cover John Carter's eleven-page summary of the Off-shore Islands paper. The summary was put on a stencil before I knew of its existence. However, the copies are being held until we hear that you have approved it.

2. Studies: According to the schedule we should have received by now Kintner's paper on the status of the cold war and Sherwin's paper on government and science. If you have not already sent them reminders, I will write them. I am checking with Professor Zinner to find out how soon his study of Yugoslavia and the Soviet bloc will be ready.

Unless I hear from you to the contrary, I look
forward to seeing you on the 10th.

December 11, 1959

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
Center for International Affairs
6 Divinity Avenue
Cambridge 38, Massachusetts

Dear Dr. Kissinger:

It was a great pleasure to visit you in your native
surroundings and to be exposed briefly to Boston. Room 629
loses some of its allure when compared to the high ceilings
and vivid decor of the Semitic Museum.

Unfortunately Hugh Morrow will be with the Governor
all next week. We are trying to set up an appointment with
General Schuyler.

I look forward to seeing you and Mrs. Norris Tuesday,
and thank you again for making the trip to Cambridge
possible.

December 17, 1959

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
Center for International Affairs
Harvard University
Cambridge 38, Massachusetts

Dear Dr. Kissinger:

Just a brief note to remind you to write
Captain Morse.

We received Colonel Kintner's paper today
and Enno Hobbing will summarize it. According to
Doris' files we agreed to pay $500 plus secretarial
expenses for the paper. If you agree we will send
a check for $500 and pay the secretarial bill when
we receive it.

I believe you were going to send us a copy of
Dr. Ransom's paper. We haven't received it yet.

Enclosed are the summaries you left in New York,
a self-explanatory memo to Dr. Craig and Donna
Mitchell's memo on defense organization which you
wanted returned to you.

It would be very helpful if you could look over
Enno's summary of the trade and tariffs paper and
the economic aid paper and Mr. Carter's summary of
the Morse paper and bring them down with you on
Tuesday.

I look forward to seeing you next week.

Enclosures

DNA Research
10 Rockefeller Plaza
New York 20, New York

December 22, 1959

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
Center for International Affairs
Harvard University
6 Divinity Avenue
Cambridge 38, Massachusetts

Dear Dr. Kissinger:

Mr. Carter has drafted a preliminary position paper based on part of the Teller paper and the Morse contributions. We had hoped to discuss it with you today. As you see by the title, the position paper covers "Nuclear Weapons Development." I had told Mr. Carter you wanted the paper to cover nuclear testing, but he believes weapons development and testing are too closely related to be discussed separately. I believe we need to "beef up" the paper with greater emphasis on the U.S. negotiating position, inspection, detection, etc. With this in mind I did some preliminary research which is appended to the position paper in rough form. A second problem with the paper, as I see it, is that it will overlap with the paper on military technology. A copy of Mr. Carter's paper is attached.

Paula von Haimberger has completed her research on population. A copy of her report is attached. I was not very successful in dissauding her from doing such a comprehensive job. However, I believe it should be a relatively simple task to draw up a preliminary position paper based on her research. I suggest we do not proceed with the position paper till you have had a chance to review the research and discuss it with her next Wednesday.

Enno Hobbing's summary of Sherwin's paper has been mailed to you. Joan Cook and Paula are doing research for incorporation in the position paper.

By Monday Joan Cook and I completed research on Western European Defense and NATO. Enno Hobbing is drafting the preliminary position paper today.

The next projects are summaries of Zinner's paper on Eastern Europe (he should receive payment this week) and Kraemer's paper on the U.S. information program which we received today. I enclose a note from Dr. Kraemer addressed to you.

December 23, 1959

To: Nancy Hoepli

From: Henry A. Kissinger

I would appreciate your sending
the summaries of the Teller paper to Possony
in Washington. If you don't have his address,
you can send them in care of Kintner.

Concerning the fees for Papers C-2
(Plank) and D-6 (Koons); Plank is to get
$400, while Koons is getting $1000 for every-
thing he is doing, including summaries, etc.
There were no commissioning letters as both are in
the area. In the future, it would be very
helpful if you would identify any papers about
which there are questions with the name of
the author and topic, rather than just by
number. As I have mentioned before, I would
prefer to work directly with you on any ques-
tions related to study papers.

MEMORANDUM

TO: DR. KISSINGER
FROM: DORIS THOMPSON - DNA RESEARCH
RE: STUDY PAPERS

December 18, 1959

Thank you for your prompt response to my last memorandum of December 9th. Here are some additional questions:

1. What will be the fee for paper C-2. May we have a copy of the commissioning letter?

2. What is the fee for paper D-6?

Thank you in advance for your attention to these two questions.

December 30, 1959

TO: Dr. Kissinger

FROM: Nancy Hoepli

SUBJECT: Harbison's Paper on Labor Problems in Industrialization of Underdeveloped Countries

Harbison is explicit in stating the problem of manpower in industrialization of underdeveloped countries. He states that 1) industrialization is not automatically beneficial to the free world and tends to encourage totalitarianism. 2) Since most underdeveloped countries are under strong pressures to industrialize, they will strive to do so with or without U.S. help. However, "We have no legitimate interest in helping countries to industrialize unless we can influence the course of their economic development."

Harbison does not buttress his conclusions with specific policy recommendations. For example:

* Does he favor a bilateral as opposed to a multilateral approach to technical assistance?

* How do we "influence the development of future leaders of government, industry and labor in the underdeveloped countries?" Should the emphasis be on increased educational exchanges or by assisting in setting up educational institutions in underdeveloped countries?

* What should a long-range policy encompass, granted that long-range planning is preferable to short-range planning and that economic assistance should be divorced from military aid?

The logical conclusion to be drawn from Harbison's propositions is that totalitarian techniques are more practical and efficient for industrializing countries hellbent on speed and economic progress at any price. He recommends a holding operation, i.e. assisting the underdeveloped countries in finding a middle road between two economic and political systems.

*****

I think it would be useful to check on ICFTU and WFTU operations and programs in underdeveloped countries. I also suggest getting copies of ILO and ECOSOC reports on industrialization problems and techniques in underdeveloped countries. These combined with Harbison's elaboration of specific policy recommendations should be adequate for the manpower section of the paper on economic development of underdeveloped countries.

MEMORANDUM

December 31, 1959

TO: Elissa Norris

FROM: Nancy Hoepli

Attached is draft letter requested by Dr. Kissinger.
Following is a pot pourri of misc. information, requests, etc.

1. When Dr. Kissinger was in New York yesterday he promised to send us the RANSOM paper on DEFENSE ORGANIZATION as soon as he returned to Cambridge. We are now doing research for a speech to be given in mid-January and this paper would be a great asset to us.

2. I understand Prof. Possony has been commissioned to write a paper on the status of nuclear research. Could you find out for us when the paper is due (approximately)? His fee is $500 plus expenses.

3. Are you acknowledging papers as they arrive? I had assumed you were acknowledging the ones you received up there and we were doing the ones that came here first. From now on I suggest this is the procedure we should follow. A copy of your acknowledgement should be sent to me and I will pass it on to Doris for her permanent files.

future
In this connection, could you send me a copy of all/correspondence sent to Dr. Craig. Our coordination down here still leaves something to be desired, and this method would help close some of the loopholes. (For instance, I wouldn't have seen the copy of Dr. Kissinger's letter to Bonesteel if I hadn't accidentally run across it in the files, and I would have continued to annoy you about following up on the rest of the paper.)

4. Could you tie a red ribbon around my letters to Dr. Kissinger or find some other way to bring them to his attention? (I write this at his suggestion.) Last week I sent him a list of authorities on foreign affairs who had been recommended by George Franklin and John Campbell of the Council on Foreign Relations. It was a two-page list. Dr. Kissinger doesn't recall seeing it. He also doesn't remember seeing a copy of a 27-page report on POPULATION by Paula von Haimberger. You don't need to show him this now as he read the original in New York, but I would be curious to know whether you received it.

5. Dr. Kissinger wanted to be reminded to write letters to Dr. Sherwin and Frederick H. Harbison.

6. We are sending letters to everyone who is due to write a paper to reassure them their hard work is still wanted. For this purpose we will need the letterhead.

7. Hooray! We are up to date on an approval of summaries! Dr. K. has seen all to date (including a couple much arrived after he left Cambridge for N.Y.).