Chapter VI

Memorandum to Henry A. Kissinger -- page 2 -- August 12, 1960

1. "The" before "retaliatory forces" is misleading. (I assume you mean retaliatory forces in general, as contrasted with "the retaliatory force" in the next sentence, which I assume means--well, I'm not sure whose force is meant. Clarify?)

2. "As equally" is tautological.

3. "Prayerful," completely aside from the question whether one believes in prayer and the question whether you use the word literally, seems to me to introduce a mystical tone here that is quite unlike the unsentimental tone of the rest, and I think the word may be more of a liability than an asset. In next sentence, suggest putting "Nth country" problem in quotes.

4. "Cannot be overemphasized." Sort of a cliché. Suggest finding a fresher way. I'm undecided about "slide towards Armageddon."

5. Slightly ragged to say that "they" (meaning *both* participants) "will put themselves at the mercy of the opponent" (who's he?). Suggest beginning sentence with "A participant" and changing whole sentence to the singular. I grant that the present sentence is probably *clear* enough but it's not as *smooth* as it might be.

6. "Lilienthal"? Also, the sentence is not perfectly smooth. Rough spots are "so much has been produced" and "of the numbers."

7. Insert "the" before "means" to keep this noun from seeming (for a split second) like a verb.

8. Nothing much wrong here, but it would be smoother to say "each" side, and a part of "its" stockpile.

9. This isn't a "motive"; rather it seems to be a necessary condition.

10. By your definitions, a "surprise attack" and a "pre-emptive attack" are two different creatures. Here you are discussing the pre-emptive kind, as of course you must. But you are discussing it in the context of how to reduce the incentive to make a "surprise attack." I can only conclude that in this chapter you have gone off the technical meaning of "surprise attack" and now are using the term simply to mean an attack not advertised in advance. But you haven't warned the reader. See my comment No. 7a in my memorandum on Chapter II.

Chapter VI

Memorandum to Henry A. Kissinger -- page 3 -- August 12, 1960

11. This is obviously the key sentence, and I wish you could get to it quicker. The sentences preceding it weaken the impact. Another comment on this paragraph is more general, and has to do with *point of view*--a subject on which I have remarked rather clumsily in my previous memoranda. Here your approach seems to be no longer normative; it seems to be that of the scholar standing off and studying all countries and building a model. Therefore, "attacker," "defender," "aggressor" seem designed to be taken as "any attacker," "any defender," etc., and not automatically as Russia and America. Now, of course, the reader cannot avoid having images of real countries arise as he reads, but if he does, he himself is applying the model to his view of reality; and this process seems to me subtly different from a process in which the author himself simply starts with the assumption that a particular country will be the aggressor and another the defender. All I expect to do by this kind of comment is to make you aware of one reader's impression that your book is a mixture--not always clearly marked--between normative and non-normative. (See also comments Nos. 14 and 21, below.)

12. It would seem to me that the next two paragraphs, on unilateral measures, should be greatly shortened on the ground that you covered these points very well in Chapter II. You need not assume that the reader has forgotten all of that discussion. I suggest you retain only what is necessary to relate unilateral actions to arms control.

13. Suggest eliminate "opt."

14. Here occurs one of those sudden disconcerting shifts from non-normative to normative. Is the U.S. the only country that could conceivably make a unilateral contribution to arms control?

15. Unclear whether you mean the discussion in this book, or in general, and unclear whether you mean *your* conclusion or someone else's.

16. Preceding comment applies here, too. Also, "this leads to the conclusion" is too much like wording of preceding paragraph. Also, antecedent of "this" is not clearcut.

17. I got lost here. Why "thus"? Does this sentence grow inevitably out of previous assertion? I get the feeling that some steps have been skipped. My confusion is not helped by the new paragraph at bottom of page, for there you seem to go back and resume the argument against reducing stockpiles too far.

18. "such that" is awkward. Moving "such" immediately after "be" would fix it.

Chapter VI

Memorandum to Henry A. Kissinger -- page 4 -- August 12, 1960

19. "surprise attack" in its technical or nontechnical sense?

20. Whose "warning radar"? The imminent attacker's, no doubt, but the word "warning" brings a momentary image of the _defender's_ radar. Needs clarifying.

21. "We would then. . . ." Another quick change to normative approach. I'm beginning to formulate more clearly my vague uneasiness about the ambiguous viewpoint of your book. Immediately the "we" and "our" make the reader think that in earlier sentences you were talking only of inspecting the _Soviet Union_, not us. Instead of imparting reality through specificity, the normative method sometimes goes in the direction of _unreality_, for what country would make any inspection agreement that clearly benefited the opponent only? Wherever in the book you are discussing U.S. policy explicitly, I think there's no problem. It's in these discussions of international relations and international agreements that the ambiguity of approach gives trouble. Wouldn't it be better in this case to say "the defending country" instead of "we," "its" instead of "our," etc.?

22. This repeats an earlier chapter. There are, I realize, occasions when you wish to make the same point over because it has a bearing on a new discussion. But in such instances the material can be cut down to the muscle. For example, how about saying here in place of two long sentences: "Though it is safe to launch airplanes on the basis of an unconfirmed warning (they can always be recalled), missiles are irrevocable when launched and therefore must be designed to ride out an attack."

23. _Whose_ retaliatory forces? Probably those of both sides, but the trouble is, the reader (at least I do) may tend to think of the "retaliatory force" as being the "defender's" only. If I guess the meaning right, you might clarify by simply beginning, "But such surveillance may help. . . ."

24. Wouldn't it be better to say "striking forces" instead of "retaliatory forces" in all three instances on the page, and in certain other places as appropriate? "Retaliatory forces" seems to limit them to retaliation, whereas their potential is broader.

25. Difficult sentence. The difficulty is that "sufficient doubt" is so far separated from "to make" that the pure meaning gets adulterated. The "to make" gets tangled up with "compliance" and "ultimatum." In any case I am not quite sure of the meaning, especially in view of the next sentence, which seems a non-sequitur.

Chapter VI

Memorandum to Henry A. Kissinger -- page 5 -- August 12, 1960

26. Another tough one. Perhaps you mean, "Though the advent of solid fuels will not greatly increase the speed with which missiles can be made ready, solid-fuel missiles will have this difference: their readiness will be detectable by constant surveillance only."

27. If "constant" is the key word here, suggest underlining it.

28. Hard to follow because of doubts about whether the statements are from some one country's viewpoint or both equally. How about this: "It contributes to stability by supplying information to each party about the size of the other's striking force. But it increases vulnerability by revealing to each party the location of the other's most sensitive targets." (Again the use of "retaliatory" seems misleading; so I made it "striking" in the above; but if you change some of these to "striking" and leave others "retaliatory" when they don't specifically mean "retaliatory," you may only increase the confusion by seeming to mean two different types of forces when actually there is no distinction.

29. I'll stop commenting on "retaliatory force" because I've made my point. Evidently you use it as a technical term for forces capable of striking directly from country to country (whether in retaliation or not), as distinguished from forces for limited engagements. But I don't recall that the reader has ever been given this technical definition. Anyhow, no more comments.

30. "But"? Relation between this sentence and preceding one unclear. Does the preceding sentence describe "negative evidence" or its opposite? Seems as though such a control scheme is really designed to detect *violations*, not "the absence of violation" as stated here.

31. Pretty cryptic. Does it pertain only to groupings without reference to location of weapons, or does it imply no weapons in any NATO country except U.K., France, and U.S.?

32. "placing"? How about "including"?

33. Suggest "A lesser."

34. "was" not "is"

35. "suggests" not "suggest." (I probably shouldn't bother with this kind of thing.)

36. Tense (see next sentence).

MEMORANDUM

August 12, 1960

FROM: Max Hall
TO: Henry A. Kissinger
SUBJECT: Chapter V, THE NECESSITY FOR CHOICE

I write this without having read Chapter IV, which I
didn't get.

My reaction to Chapter V is that its first two parts
are again excellent--generally well written and effective--and
that the third part, "The Prospects for Diplomacy" is largely
superfluous.

First, a few words about the first two parts. I think
I encountered a few more unsound or difficult sentences here than
I did in Chapters II and III, as though parts of this chapter had
not been gone over as carefully as the others. I have indicated
all that I noticed.

Substantively, it seemed to me that just a bit more recognition could have been given to the many heart-breaking American attempts to negotiate on various questions--earnest efforts, for example, around the time of Churchill's remarkable 1949 speech which you quote on p. II-7. Many of these attempts, I suspect, were made by people who were rapidly being disillusioned and were not grossly guilty of the fatuousness and foolish notions you describe. This is a general and probably unhelpful remark, sans chapter and verse. Probably more of a general impression than an argument, and should have no effect if it does not run in the direction of a feeling that you yourself already had.

A comment about which I feel more confident is that it
seemed to me you occasionally depended too heavily on newspaper
reports for evidence. You will find a further mention of this
at the end of my detailed comments.

The title of the chapter's third part, "The Prospects for Diplomacy," suggests that you are turning there to the future. But it seems to me that the section goes over much ground that you covered in the earlier parts. (In fact, you even had a good deal in your Chapter I about our preoccupation with techniques rather than content.) The third section therefore turns a fine chapter into an excessively long and over-elaborated treatise.

Chapter V

Or so it appears to this reader. My suggestion is that you either

(1) eliminate the third section entirely, except for a few important previously-unmentioned points which you might work into the first and second sections (for example, your point about *future* summit meetings might be inserted next to your earlier discussion of the Paris fiasco), or

(2) drastically reduce the third section to a concise discussion of future negotiations (perhaps ten tight pages or so), without repetition of the previous warnings against too much attention to techniques, etc., and without making again the points you have already made concerning earlier summit meetings, etc.

Following are my comments on specific sentences. Again the numbers accord with my numbers pencilled in the left-hand margins.

1. "some states may prefer victory to peace." But the paragraph seems to be on revolutions in general, not on conflicts among *states*.

2. Omitting "or" would remove a syntactical difficulty (the subsequent use of "they" and "their").

3. Awkward sentence.

4. Suggest repeat after "rigidity was" whatever words from preceding line apply here ("a symptom of the perils"?).

5. Top of next page says "Western" attitudes. Which is it?

6. Should you say "asked little of the Old World" instead of "the rest of the world"? We asked plenty of Mexico.

7. And to be supplied with coffee, tea, rubber, and certain other commodities.

8. For a century after 1812 we *weren't* a major power. Suggest deleting "We were unique among the major powers in that."

9. Suggest "were separate and successive phases."

["Chapter V", "Memorandum to Henry A. Kissinger -- page 3 -- August 12, 1960", "10. But you say 1949 in text. 1949 or 1948? By the way, suggest footnote at end of quotation.", "11. Sentence requires two readings. Suggest making it: \"in many (some?) quarters that because the quest for strength had produced a stalemate, the attainment of weakness, by reassuring. . . .\"", "12. Suggest inserting \"we were\" after \"While.\" Also suggest in next line substituting \"this separation\" for \"it.\"", "13. \"of a kind\" is momentarily ambiguous. Suggest making it \"But too frequently we seemed to have in mind a kind of. . . .\"", "14. \"wasted\"? \"wanted\"?", "15. *Times* named in text; why not *Herald Tribune* too? Suggest \"Said the New York *Herald Tribune*: 'No one. . . .'" And then immediately after end of that quote, \"And the New York *Times* added: 'Mr. Eisenhower. . . .'" The newspapers need not be named in the footnotes, unless you wish to consolidate in one note at end of both quotes: \"*Herald Tribune*, editorial, July 21, 1955; *Times*, editorial, July 25, 1955.\"", "16. \"This\" gives wrong impression. Suggest something like \"The conviction was widespread. . . .\" Also, if your book has a British edition(and I don't know why it shouldn't have) couldn't you make such passages slightly smoother for British readers by saying \"on both sides of the Atlantic\" instead of \"both here and in Europe\"? Also, I think you should say in text (not just in footnote) that this is a British quotation. Finally, is the last word of the quotation \"unfounded\" or \"confounded\"?", "17. Where does this quotation start? Here again the reader should know, without consulting footnote, the country where the utterance was made.", "18. Spelling. Also apostrophe. Also I suggest ending this sentence after \"Macmillan\"; ending next sentence with \"said of the summit affair:\"; and removing bracketed \"summit\" from the quote. The footnote identifies the occasion of the statement.", "19. \"plays,\" or \"played\"? In next line I suggest, for the benefit of some reader who doesn't remember dates, \"after the Hungarian explosion of 1956.\" At top of p. II-17 I suggest \"Nagy in 1958.\" And in fifth line of that page: \"Yet before another year had passed. . . .\""]

Chapter V

20. Someone has underlined "however." I vote for its deletion.

21. Changing "intentions" to "intent" would make for smoother reading by eliminating the ambiguity over the antecedent of "which."

22. "bringing" preferable to "bring."

23. Insert "a transaction" before "which" in order to give "which" a closer antecedent.

24. A long sentence but an excellent one. No ambiguities over antecedents.

25. Suggest inserting "of 1960" between "summit conference" and "at Paris."

26. "fopped off"? Also, in next line, "achieved" might express your meaning more precisely than "realized," which is ambiguous.

27. "one fell swoop" is a cliché which I didn't comment on a few pages back, but using the expression again seems too much. Also, "TEMPTS" ought to be "TEMPT" since its subject is plural. How about making it "--all these tempt the Soviet leaders. . . ."?

28. Suggest making it "this twin yearning" or "this dual desire" (otherwise the antecedent of "this" is vague).

29. "thus" is ambiguous; suggest moving it to beginning of sentence. Also in third line suggest "Paris" instead of "summit." And in fifth line suggest making it "preceding it--diplomacy which, if it had continued much longer, would have brought about. . . ." (sentence now difficult to read).

30. Insert "our" before "reliance," to keep "reliance" from being taken as a second object of the preposition "of."

31. Sentence doesn't read.

32. Date alone would be sufficient.

33. "Therefore, too"? Suggest delete "too."

34. It strikes me that Roberts, cited in the last three footnotes, is not the "best evidence," even though he is a competent newspaperman. Isn't the text of Dulles' speech available?

Chapter V

What about the Department of State Bulletin? Of course, if Dulles'
words are available only in Roberts, I withdraw comment. Whoa!
I notice now that the footnote citing the Roberts book, on your
page II-10, has been crossed out. Where does that leave these
three footnotes?

35. "necessary" or "inescapable"? "Necessary" seems
to imply he wanted the tension; is this what you mean to say?

36. This paragraph, preceding the Gaitskill (sic) quotation, seemed to be in context of the period after the 1953 death of Stalin. Without warning, and without adequate preparation, you then give a 1958 quotation. If the reader consults the footnote, he may be surprised, and in any case he may be confused as to the timing.

37. I assume you mean to associate Gaitskill's statement with this new theory. If so, how about inserting "thus" between "was" and "countered."

38. Suggest putting "1958" in brackets after "this year." The footnote is of course necessary but it shouldn't be a prerequisite to keeping the timing straight. This is especially true since the next sentence says "a year later."

39. Dispatch should be checked to make sure Salisbury really said this flatly on his own. Seems unlikely. These reporters ought not to be pictured as principals in the controversy if they are only reporting a climate of opinion. Statements like "the heat of their argument" at top of p. II-31 ought not to seem to describe Middleton and Salisbury, it seems to me. Also, in the footnotes on Middleton and Salisbury stories, "London" and "New York" are wrongly placed. Suggest "Drew Middleton from London in *New York Times*. . . ." etc.

40. Shouldn't "liberalizing" be in square brackets?

41. For clarity, how about saying "our willingness"?

42. What and where was the "Tribune meeting"? Unless we can be more specific, how about simply "Address Oct 1, 1957, quoted. . . ."?

43. The colon leads the reader to expect a quotation on Mr. K vs. Mr. S. Suggest a period.

44. "faced" is a little unclear. What does it mean? "Faced" when? I don't suppose you mean "endured."

45. Omit "is."

Chapter V

Memorandum to Henry A. Kissinger -- page 6 -- August 12, 1960

46. Here's a comment that is pertinent to this and other
places in this chapter: Ending one quotation and starting another
immediately makes for hard reading. Despite the quotation marks
the reader may think the same person is speaking again. Even if
he doesn't think so, he must read several lines without knowing
who the second speaker is--unless he looks ahead, and if he
looks ahead and then goes back, he's not reading smoothly and
consecutively, and part of his mind is diverted from the content.
It's a better practice to do as you have done with the Harriman
quotation several lines further on.

47. "formal"?

48. "claim"? Or "demand"? Or "claim that unification
had to be"?

49. Are the words "in every policy choice" necessary?
They don't seem to add any sharp meaning here, and only make the
sentence harder to read.

50. I can't make this sentence read properly. Seems
ungrammatical. The sentence begins with "When." Where is the
independent clause?

51. Another difficult sentence. Inserting "such"
before "spasms" would fix it. Probably a typing error.

52. Sentence doesn't hang together.

53. Syntax o.k. but I'm not sure I follow.

54. When "on" precedes "either," there should be no
"on" in the next line.

55. Do you mean "Nor does it reside in proving. . ."?

56. Typing error.

57. Hasn't this been said more than once before?

58. "points"?

59. "with" preferable to "and"?

60. Also sounds repetitious. I am wondering if the first
few pages of this new section could not be shortened somewhat in
order to get faster into the new materials you haven't brought up
before. (In fact, after going through the whole section I can ex-
pand this comment to apply it to much more than the first few pages.)

Chapter V

Memorandum to Henry A. Kissinger -- page 7 -- August 12, 1960

61. Is all this about "acceptable proposals" just a wee bit of a straw man? Up to now I haven't noticed our making many "acceptable proposals." Is someone really proposing that we can't make anything but "acceptable" ones?

62. As a former newspaperman and State Department information officer, I am skeptical enough about newspaper stories to wonder if this is not a rather shaky basis on which to criticize Eaton. Maybe he deserves criticism (I have no opinion on that), but what you cite is only a newspaper story. And even *that* says only that he was "understood" to have said this, and "said" to have said that. This sort of evidence may weaken your credibility.

MEMORANDUM

August 16, 1960

FROM: Max Hall
TO: Henry A. Kissinger
SUBJECT: First three sections of Chapter IV

I have run into slow going, and am spending much more
time on Chapter IV than I expected. Even though I am only half
through the chapter, I have already made 129 comments--enough,
I am sure, to be fatiguing to both of us. If much of the rest
of the manuscript contains this many sentences to flag, I must
change my criteria in order to finish by Friday. Assuming that
I will have to move faster on some chapters, which ones would you
suggest? Put the other way, which parts do you want me to read
the most carefully?

The list that follows calls attention to a lot of little
rough spots--an unaccountable flurry of weak "its" and then another
of weak "whiles," a few technical terms, a passage you should shorten,
and so on.

Chapter IV

Memorandum to Kissinger -- page 2

1. Suggest "were to split up."

2. Last three words repeated on next page.

3. Suggest "An even stronger reason for North Atlantic cohesion is that it is a prerequisite to constructive action." (Otherwise there's the momentary blind alley of "more necessary than what"?)

4. Transposing these two sentences would lead more smoothly into the one beginning "This is even more true."

5. Suggest moving "drawing on capital" to end of sentence, in order to preclude fleeting notion that "barren" modifies "capital."

6. Suggest "its prosperity" instead of "this."

7. "claims" lacks preciseness. Also, something "constant" can't be "followed" by anything. How about "Recurring protestations of formal unity, followed by . . ." Also might be smoother to make verb "have emphasized," and, in next sentence, "have evoked."

8. "at least" is Janus-faced. Is it supposed to look to "intransigence" or "customarily"?

9. Since "more or less" is all too commonly used for other purposes, I suggest making it "more important or less."

10. Since "deterrence" seems to be your key word, I suggest ending sentence "NATO relied on a retaliatory strategy not only for defense but also for deterrence."

11. Reader has to guess what "its" refers to -- and is bound to guess wrong unless he starts reading the sentence in the middle. Suggest "The Western alliance, with its . . . ."

12. Suggest "would give military value to . . . ."

13. (1) Do you mean we must be able to meet both conditions? why not only the second? (2) Would it be "retaliatory" if we struck first? (3) The matter between dashes cripples the continuity of the sentence; could it be omitted?

14. Seems momentarily to suggest two different countries. Wonder if "through either offensive or defensive breakthroughs" would fix it. Also, in next sentence, suggest "But this," not "But it."

15. The "it" is momentarily ambiguous. Reader must figure out whether it refers to our threat or the other side's pre-emptive attack.

16. Suggest "The Soviet leaders, in view of . . . ."

(y)

Chapter IV

Memorandum to Kissinger -- page 3

17. "attributed" might be an apter word than "consigned."

18. "dual"? The duality isn't clear. Reader will keep listening for the other shoe to drop.

19. Repetition is good if it has a purpose, but this use of "strange" twice in four lines doesn't seem purposeful.

20. New speaker ought to be identified sooner.

21. New Statesman hasn't been cited in this chapter. Date should be given.

22. Date of speech needed. Also was it Commons, as you say, or Lords?

23. Awkward. How about "Many people in Europe, after Sputnik confronted them with the implications of NATO strategy, seemed . . . ."

24. Suggest deleting "but not a necessity" (in view of preceding sentence the phrase is not a necessity), and inserting "only" after "They are."

25. Awkward. If I get your meaning how about something like: "The prime reason for keeping a substantial military establishment on the Continent is to give Europe a defense other than massive retaliation."

26. At first, in view of preceding sentence, I read "prepared" to mean "prepared by the U.S." How about "Our allies, in turn, have not wished to believe in the changed situation; they have looked the other way in order to avoid . . . ."

27. Suggest comma after "Europe" instead of dash.

28. Suggest "particularly if the Soviet leaders, with their customary skill in confusing the issues, make the challenge seem local."

29. The sentence "Consequently, alliances are not essential for policy" is simply incomprehensible. (A typing error?) Oh, do you mean Soviet alliances?

30. Suggest move "alone" after "country." Also, in next sentence, "them" has nothing precise to refer to; why not make it "Security for Europe"?

31. "reduced risk" awkward. How about "But Europe's lesser danger . . . ."

32. Suggest moving "to other countries" after "demonstrate."

33. Too many words. How about "the less likelihood that . . . ."

Chapter IV

Memorandum to Kissinger -- page 4

34. Shouldn't "in Europe" be moved back to follow "local defense"?

35. See comment No.33. But more important, this seems to be repeating earlier. Suggest you read this page carefully in light of earlier.

36. (1) This whole paragraph seems repetitious and I think you could lose it. (2) Also, this first sentence seems almost to say what you don't mean at all: "Let's force them to grow so strong they'll attack us." Of course this would be an absurd interpretation, but the sentence _is_ peculiarly worded.

37. Comma after "Europe."

38. Cleaner if you omit "of a policy of."

39. "Which" and its antecedent aren't chummy enough for smooth reading. Suggest eliminating "which" entirely by saying "not only has produced . . . but also has raised . . . ."

40. Suggest "has magnified doubts which first appeared during the Suez crisis: whether . . . ."

41. Comma after "substance."

42. "explained . . . from"?

43. The "4" would be better at _end_ of quotation. And I think the occasion of his statement belongs in footnote along with where you saw it. Speech? Interview? His exact words or a reporter's reconstruction? Incidentally the second paragraph of DeGaulle's statement seems very clumsily translated, even ungrammatical.

44. Text says 1951, footnote 1957. The quotation is a bit hard to follow, even aside from the questions it raises as to the Labor Party's consensus and that of Conservatives. Could you put the statement in context a little better? Also, why not paraphrase all but the key phrases ("dismantling," etc., and "naked," etc.) and thus obviate the bracketed matter?

Chapter IV

Memorandum to Kissinger -- page 5

45. "of."

46. "one of two consequences." Does this mean we aren't sure which? Or does it mean that one consequence has appeared in some countries and the other in others?

47. Putting "either" and "or" in two different sentences won't work; it leaves the first sentence no sentence at all.

48. Technical language; quite unclear.

49. Suggest "but would only" instead of "while it would."

50. Suggest "that country" instead of "it," because it isn't the same "it" just mentioned.

51. "possessing them"? Also, suggest starting next sentence "Some people argue. . . ." There are too many "its" in these sentences.

52. Comma essential after "deter."

53. The matter between dashes is unclear. Whose reason? Who's building?

54. How could Soviet launch a "pre-emptive strike" against the possibility of retaliation? By your earlier definition, a pre-emptive strike would take place only in anticipation of a surprise attack. Therefore this must mean a Soviet surprise attack, not pre-emptive.

55. Even if reader remembers definition of the technical term "harden," I would still put it in quotes here. Better still, throw in a phrase that will make the meaning clear.

56. "seaborne" not "seaborn." Ordinarily I'm not trying to correct spelling, but conceivably this one could get overlooked.

57. See my No. 54.

58. Awkward. Suggest "increase the aggressor's risk of American, not European, retaliation."

59. I have no desire to quarrel with you on this point; yet I do wonder if it's stated too categorically. Suppose, hypothetically, one of our allies did _not_ lack confidence in either American understanding or willingness. Would it not be at least conceivable for the ally to see an independent retaliatory force as a real contribution toward free-world security--e.g., toward reducing the missile gap?

Chapter IV

Memorandum to Kissinger -- page 6

60. "a"

61. "fewer and fewer"

62. For clarity could you say "fears" instead of "views"?
Also, "to us" is ambiguous; do you mean "appear to us" or "unfair to us"? No doubt you mean both, but two possible shades of meaning, even if not in conflict, put a little static in the communication line.

63. "themselves" would go better after "they."

64. Punctuation.

65. "raised" can mean either "brought into the picture"
(as in "raising doubts") or "increased." Possibly you mean the
latter here.

66. Very awkward. Immediately after the dash, suggest substituting "a" for "at least such is a constant."

67. An ineffective sentence. One reason is that whole
page down to this point needs sharpening. I assume this sentence
begins the elaboration of the second inhibiting factor, stated at
top of page as "the trends inherent in nuclear weapons technology."
I would start at the top and say there are two factors, one fiscal
and the other strategic. Then give a separate paragraph on the
fiscal; finally give a separate paragraph on the strategic. It
might begin, "As for the strategic factor inhibiting the speciali-
zation of functions," etc., eliminating the weak sentence beginning
"Purely strategic factors." You can probably think of a better
solution, but something is needed.

68. "opponent." Isn't this a different opponent from
the opponent of the sentence before? It seems to be, but the
phrase "the opponent" mixes the reader up.

69. Seems an unsatisfying footnote. Did Mr. K. say
it's being developed apace, and is this our authority for a flat
statement that it is? If not, why are we citing him? Or did he
say the allies would be at his mercy? The footnote raises more
questions than it answers.

70. (1) "As long as we retain exclusive control" implies
we do retain it, but we don't, do we? "Exclusive" doesn't seem
exactly the right word even with respect to the weapons subject to
double veto, for "exclusive" implies that no one else has any say-so.
But even if that point is conceded, what about the British and
French nuclear equipment? (2) This paragraph skips all around in

Chapter IV

Memorandum to Kissinger -- page 7

tenses. (3) The paragraph is unclear as to whether you're doing the talking, or still describing a line of argument which you are going to kayo in a minute; the reader may lose track of whether you are stating facts as you see them, or someone's claims.

71. (1) If "both" means what I think it does, I suggest a dash preceding it. (2) What's the double-veto system? I think many of your readers will need an explanation. Here's one who does. Sounds as though it means that both _their_ veto and _ours_ are needed to prevent use of the weapons, but that's absurd.

72. Technical terms; unclear.

(Aside: The stepping up of the frequency of suggestions is not due to my learning that you are finding the suggestions helpful. Rather the rough spots seem to be more frequent.)

73. The "only" is a trouble-maker. How about "would not be significant . . . unless an attack . . . or unless they. . . "

74. "will" or "would"?

75. "has" or "will have"?

76. I think I would still quote "hardening." Also, in next line, "far away" is momentarily ambiguous; how about "far from the Soviet launching sites"? Should it be "little protection" or "less protection"?

77. "are prime requisites" (plural)?

78. Suggest "continually" not "constantly."

79. In referring here to seaborne sites you mean, I suppose, sites for tactical missions, as contrasted with sites for retaliatory missions. But I think it's possible that a reader will have forgotten the tactical part by this time; and if so he may be surprised at this mention of waterborne sites as though they were being introduced for the first time, for he may recall some mention of waterborne sites above (see 4th line on the page).

80. "protection"? I see your meaning, but the word suggests armor or something. How about "protection through mobility."

81. Perhaps because of what? There are more vague "its" in this chapter, for some reason, than in the others I've read.

82. Someone has moved "only" but I would move it farther, immediately preceding "one." Also, should "hour" be "horn"?

Chapter IV

Memorandum to Kissinger -- page 8

83. The "its" are giving trouble. How about "It would facilitate the protection of . . ." And I also suggest combining this sentence with the next, thus: "missiles, but it does not. . . ."

84. Now you define the double-veto system. Sounds more like "double-approval" than "double-veto," but that's beside the point; the main thing is that it should be defined clearly, the *first* time used. (See the second part of my comment no. 71, pertaining to p. III-16.)

85. "of"

86. Possibly a quibble, but it seems to me the "lowest common denominator" would be an apter phrase if the other half of the veto were exercised by NATO as a group or by any member that wished. Your definition of the double-veto system on previous page said "the host country." So would it be a common denominator?

87. What's the antecedent of "this"? What's the relation between this sentence and the phrase "or at least should be" in preceding sentence?

88. "It" in a nonconcrete sense gets monotonous when used often, and is a weak word anyhow. How about "But we should not be surprised that. . . ."

89. Suggest "These" instead of "Intermediate range."

90. Why is "*our* willingness" any more determining than the host country's? (In middle of next page you imply that the double-veto system is "essentially a device for preventing unilateral United States action.")

91. Do we retain exclusive control over all allied nuclear weapons? (See comment No. 70, pertaining to page III-16.) Also, in next line, "does" or "would"? (I'm not sure.)

92. "dual-veto" or "double-veto," or does it matter?

93. Would "create" or "fashion" be better than "insure"? (Sounds like taking out a policy with Lloyd's.)

94. Mixed tenses.

95. Stronger if you say, "But even within the existing framework many improvements are possible."

96. "is"

Chapter IV

Memorandum to Kissinger -- page 9

97. Pretty awkward. How about "retaliation which they consider essential and for which means are available; ..." And then, at the end of the sentence, "by a unilateral action" seems superfluous; stronger ending without it.

97a. You say the "United States should therefore take the following steps," but it turns out that not all of them are unilateral. The U.S. can't take them alone. Another point is that just possibly some reader would take the proposals more kindly if they did not appear to be so flat (almost pontifical-sounding); I am really not sure how I feel about this one, but some slightly more modest-sounding way of introducing these key proposals might be worth considering. I certainly don't mean you should water down your advocacy, but maybe it wouldn't hurt to take a tiny bit of the edge off the self-assurance indicated here. See also my comment No. 103, pertaining to page III-27.

98. "NATO allies" could be interpreted to mean excluding the U.S. Perhaps you simply mean "The NATO countries."

99. Unsound to say "they have neither control . . . nor can they be." Strong parallel construction would be "they have neither control . . . nor certainty about . . . ."

100. This is a borderline case, but it seems to me better to say "Of course, not all conceivable Soviet pressures can be specified. Nor would it be desirable to specify all."

101. Suggest bury the "it" and say "the members will surely be able to agree . . . ."

102. "threats" and "lack of confidence" don't pair up very effectively, one being by the USSR and the other (in an unexpected switch) by the ally. Momentarily it looks as if the Soviet lacked confidence in something.

103. Tenses don't go with those of next sentence. But there is perhaps a more serious objection to "has" and "can." They sound as if we are taking it for granted that our proposals will be accepted forthwith. Of course this assumption isn't intended, but if a reader got that impression his receptivity might be weakened. Suggest "had" and "could."

104. Suggest "National nuclear establishments designed for independent retaliation are quixotic."

105. "n-th country problem." I don't remember whether this has already been defined for the reader. I may have encountered it in a *later* chapter, V or VI. In any case, I've

Chapter IV

Memorandum to Kissinger -- page 10

forgotten exactly what it implies. Too technical to be used baldly here. Footnote doesn't help much, for you surely don't want the reader to interrupt at this point to turn to a future chapter and then come back. Much better to add a few words here telling what "n-th countries" are.

106. "The proposal . . . will meet strong opposition." Unclear whether you mean *your* proposal only, or whether others have proposed the same thing too and you are referring to the opposition to all such suggestions.

107. Seems to me that along about here we are getting a little repetition. I've had vague feelings that the story has dragged, but before it got to the point where I could point to repetitious or superfluous matter, you always went to something new. Probably you could make a few cuts; this section *is* getting long. But, as I say, I can't put my finger on much so far. (But see my No. 127, pertaining to p. III-38.)

108. Here's a flabby one: "we must do our share to remove the conditions which provide the impetus for what is in effect a tendency. . . ." This sounds like double-talk and is quite unlike most of your sentences, which have vigor. Also, near end of sentence, "other allies" is not immediately clear; does it mean "our allies outside NATO"?

109. "inhibitions"? "responsibilities"? Sentence unclear. Also, the "of" after the "outside" is superfluous.

110. Suggest new paragraph starting here.

111. "will" or "would"?

112. Seems wrong use of "i.e." Do you mean "e.g."? I suggest "for example."

113. "though" not "while." "While" ought to be used only when there's a pretty strong temporal aspect--that is, when the predominant meaning is "at the same time."

114. "Nth countries" again. (By the way, here is a correct use of "while.")

115. But not here; "though" or "although" is much preferable to "while," in my view. I grant there is a faint time element but I think the logical element (expressing a contradiction) is stronger.

Chapter IV

Memorandum to Kissinger -- page 11

116. "Ibid"? Odd use of that term. It seems to treat some future page of your own, which you probably don't really want the reader to consult *now*, as a source document.

117. Couldn't you find some other way? Such footnotes are not very helpful.

118. Definitely "though" not "while."

119. Suggest "these efforts."

120. Suggest that the matter between dashes be moved after "Force."

121. "would"?

122. Would you want to say, "Except geographically, Great Britain. . ."?

123. "contest"?

124. A rather fuzzy line; can't think offhand how to fix.

125. Retained as between U.S. and host country (as you defined system earlier) or between U.S. and NATO? There's something about the next sentence that causes me to make this inquiry concerning this one. I'm not sure I really have a point, though.

126. (1) "Either . . . or" can't be in two different sentences; the first one is no sentence at all. (2) Besides, I can't satisfy myself that these two propositions are really subject to "either-or" treatment; are they mutually exclusive? (3) On "lowest common denominator" see my comment No. 86.

127. This page really drags, and I wonder if most of it can be eliminated. Goes over same ground.

128. "can" and "not" are too far separated.

129. Antecedent of "this"?

MEMORANDUM

August 18, 1960

FROM: Max Hall
TO: Henry A. Kissinger
SUBJECT: Last four sections of Chapter IV.

Chapter IV is not nearly so well-written as II and III are. In the first place, I found a great deal more sentences which seemed to me defective, and the ridiculous length of this memo attests to that.

But in addition, the chapter is not nearly so interesting as the other two. Perhaps this reaction is partly subjective; to me the subject matter of IV is not quite so exciting. But I think my reaction is also due to excessive length and elaboration. For example, Section V, on "Arms Control in Europe," 27 pages long, seems to reach its climax at approximately pages 8 and 9 and then gradually run down until it finally gives out. After telling what you think the best solution would be, you get into expositions of other people's arguments, and at one part of that I was moved to some fairly strong comments for your consideration. (See my comments 87 and 88.) After the other people's arguments, it seemed to me that the section moves leisurely through page after page in which, from time to time, I seem to see overlappings with other parts of the book in which you deal with deterrence, limited war, arms control, and NATO cohesion. I think the section would be improved if considerably tightened. Section VI, too, seems to drift out to a leisurely end after the main wallop has been delivered.

Chapter IV

1. "Though" is imprecise because the dependent and independent clauses do not really collide; there is nothing inconsistent or even apparently inconsistent about them. I suggest the following substitute for the first two sentences of the paragraph: "The 'German problem,' so painfully <u>or</u> dramatically if you prefer[ ] apparent today, has a long history. Arrangements in Germany have been . . . ."

2. Re the two "onlys," I suggest that you eliminate the first and move the second to the end of the sentence.

3. "had" not "has"

4. "coneries" (that is both singular and plural).

5. The "not only" and "but also" are not placed so as to be parallel and therefore are not sound. Since the sentence also seems to me weak in other ways, I will try a substitute: "The powers struggled not only to thwart German aspirations but also to prevent one another from gaining a preponderant influence."

6. Since "At the same time" doesn't really mean at the same time at all, I suggest deletion.

7. Suggest simplify to read "Unification in the nineteenth century meant the construction . . . ."

8. A better solution is to move "to other countries" ahead of "they were indistinguishable." If you do this, I suggest insuring clarity by changing the two dashes to commas. And since "portion" <u>could</u> be taken in a geographical sense, I suggest making it "as they were during most of the German Empire's existence."

9. This may be only a matter of opinion, but I would like to see the word "So" before "Germany."

10. Suggest "strong enough to defend itself but not strong enough to attack." In a parallel construction like this, repeating the same words brings strength.

11. I think "at only" was better than "only at," though neither is bad.

12. Since your previous use of the word "unification" was in a nineteenth-century context, how about saying here: "But in the mid-twentieth century can one . . . ."

Chapter IV

13. Isn't this too sweeping an assertion, since without
change there would not be anything to adjust to?

14. Suggest "for the United States, . . . ." instead
of "for a nation."

15. Should you say "most of" the existing governments?
Have we recognized the existing Hungarian government? As it is,
this statement seems to be negated by your reference to Hungary at
bottom of page. You started out in this paragraph to distinguish
Germany from the satellites; but at bottom of page you seem to
be distinguishing between Poland et al. and Hungary. The last
sentence of the paragraph (p. IV-5), for example, seems to high-
light the internal inconsistency of the paragraph. (The "incon-
sistency" no doubt is in the reader's mind, not the author's, but
at least some clarification seems called for.)

16. Suggest inserting after semicolon: "it is also that."

17. Suggest "Khrushchev himself" not "Even Khrushchev."
Here I think repetition of "even" is weak not strong, for the
two "evens" do not express the same idea or parallel ideas. In
next line I suggest deleting "constantly," but if you can't dispense
with it, I suggest changing it to "continually" and moving it after
"reiterate."

18. Suggest substituting after the dash, "even if they
seemed to accept them by failing to advocate unification."

19. This sentence seems to shift ground suddenly. How
about substituting after the comma, "but the West cannot sanction
it unless the unavoidability can be demonstrated."

20. "which" and its antecedent are awkwardly separated.
How about "in projecting itself." Also, which Geneva foreign
ministers' meeting? Hasn't there been more than one? (Maybe I'm
wrong.)

21. Is "former" necessary?

22. "such a notion" is ambiguous. Do you mean "such
an outcome"? And "could" instead of "can"?

23. "with the line of unification" seems awkward.
Suggest "by urging unification."

24. Suggest "in order to" instead of "to."

Chapter IV

25. "They" offers momentary ambiguity. Suggest something like the following: "These Soviet moves were obviously not planned in detail, for they depended on many factors beyond Soviet control."

26. Does "this" mean "chaos" or "situation"? If the former, I suggest "Even if chaos is not the deliberate objective."

27. "it"?

28. What does "consolidation" mean here? "Reunification"? Recognition by other countries? Or simply strengthening? I can't relate this sentence very clearly to Mr. K's quotation.

29. Were there question marks in these two places?

30. Four dots or three?

31. A Soviet peace treaty, I assume. One treaty or two? This reads as though you have already mentioned this Soviet proposal. Maybe so, but I don't remember it.

32. "Confederation"? Again you seem to be bringing up a new idea as though you had already discussed it. Also, should you place these various Soviet proposals in time? By the date your book is published Russia may have made a new proposal. Also, should you say "would" instead of "will" (here and in next sentence) and "were" instead of "are"?

33. Does "it" mean the Confederation after it came into being, or the proposal for a Confederation? The further I go in this paragraph the more lost I become.

34. "prepare" not "prepares." And haven't the Soviets already made this claim? (See your next page.) I am wondering if the paragraph can be shortened and its parts better interrelated. At first you say the peace-treaty proposal "will set the stage" for an attempt to undermine West Germany; later it appears that the attempt is already in full swing, with bitter vilifying and all the rest. In general, also, I wonder to what extent the paragraph contains matter that might look out of date when your book is published. Finally, the last sentence of the paragraph is not perfectly clear; "Communists"? "joined"?

35. What tactics, exactly? Bitter vilification? (Probably you mean a whole series of moves, the order of which was unclear in preceding paragraph.)

Chapter IV

36. "most" is ambiguous. Suggest either delete it or (second-best) place commas after "satellite" and "unification." Also, after "unification" should you change "will" to "would"?

37. Just which issue is that? "This" ought to refer to something just mentioned, but the reader will be uncertain whether it really does, or whether it simply means the whole German problem.

38. "would likely be," not "is likely to be."

39. A quibble perhaps, but "every statement of the two German governments" is slightly impure language, implying joint statements. How about simply "The statements of the two German governments indicate"?

40. Reader now gathering piecemeal what the proposal embodies. I suspect that you have faith in the readers to be already familiar with the Confederation proposal. I suggest more skepticism on that point. Besides, this method of dealing with recent or current events, it appears to me, makes this part of the chapter seem too journalistic--almost like an extension of discussions going on in columns and editorials. Your book will be coming out in 1961. The reader (in 1961, 1962, and even later) will find your discussion of various proposals couched in language indicating that (1) the proposals are still current; (2) their details are familiar to all. Even though your book necessarily deals with hot current issues, wouldn't it be better to reduce your perishability as much as possible? This comment may apply to a number of passages in the book, especially those relating to current proposals; but the Confederation proposal will serve as an illustration of what I'm saying. When you first mention it, it seems to me you should say that so-and-so, at such-and-such a time, proposed a plan under which (devoting rest of sentence to its main provisions). Make it read like history. So far, what you've said will stand up forever, no matter what happens. Then you could proceed to rip the proposal apart and show its dangers, etc., in such a way that your ripping operation would hold up pretty well whether or not new events and proposals had intervened between the writing and the reading of the book. Of course you can't achieve complete nonperishability but at least you can avoid making a reader feel that he can't follow your discussion without having last year's periodicals at his elbow for reference.

41. "its" being momentarily unclear, I suggest starting the sentence with "The East German regime." Also suggest clarifying "to the opposition of any existing government"; how about "to those elements in West Germany opposing . . . ."

Chapter IV

42. "recognition of its international status" unclear.
Does it mean "international recognition of its sovereignty"?

43. "it"? How could withdrawing from confederation
demonstrate advocacy of unity?

44. Another unclear "it." And just which Eastern
overtures are meant--the proposal for confederation, or some
later overtures that would follow the East German withdrawal
from the confederation?

45. Would "The" be better than "This"?

46. Maybe "relatively liberal" would make it sound less
like a contradiction in terms.

47. Weak ending; "by definition" might be moved after
"Communist rule" and surrounded by commas.

48. Suggest "other satellites."

49. "this" ambiguous. Does it mean, for example, that
we failed to make this clear or that we failed to _seek_ to make it
clear?

50. Singular verb following plural subject.

51. Suggest "Any negotiation on Germany, then, puts us
in two . . . :" Also, in third line, what does the "it" mean?
If it means the division of Germany you seem to be saying that
we would be _seeking_ such division.

52. "take its stand on issues," etc., isn't clear.
What is it that ought not to lend itself to obfuscation, "issues"
or "stand"? Also, suggest "Though" instead of "While."

53. "were" and "could"?

54. "are" not "is."

55. Awkward wording. Also unclear. Preceding sentence
said "local" elections. Could you combine the two sentences so
as to make clear the local-state-nationwide contrasts?

56. (1) Why not just "the two Germanys," deleting a
superfluous line? (2) "emerges" is in wrong tense; also unclear--
do you mean "was supported in"?

Chapter IV

57. "problem" or "question"?

58. Peculiar sentence. How about "If not, nothing could be worked out." However, you would then have three consecutive sentences beginning with "If." Maybe you could change the third one.

59. Seems clearer to move "technical" before "opportunities." I think "technical expedients" has a sort of technological ring that is unintended.

60. "cause of negotiations" may be all right but it did stop me momentarily. The whole sentence fails to impress me, for I don't know the implications of "achieved by subterfuge" and I don't know just who's pretending this. Is the sentence too topical? Does it set up a straw man? This whole page seems pretty argumentative to me; and I find myself wondering if some of it can be lost without pain.

61. "give"? So far as the "indirectly" goes, is it really a question of our "giving" them a veto? Seems to me they've got it already.

62. Suggest "the recent history of Western Europe."

63. (1) Every sentence of the paragraph so far has been qualified by "so the argument goes," or some such phrase. But here is where it's needed most of all. Could you take "so the argument goes" from the preceding sentence and stick it in this one? (2) A more important point is that Lippmann's role in the argument is left ambiguous. Was he reporting a school of thought, or was he making the argument himself? If the latter, did he make only the last argument or every argument in the paragraph so far?

64. Are you now leaving Lippmann's contentions and replying to them? I gather you are, but the switchover should be clearly marked--perhaps by starting a new paragraph, or a better transition. The way it is now, you seem to have two contradictory sentences, one after another, without making it perfectly clear who's talking.

65. "The problem of the West is more complex." Needs sharpening; "problem"? "West"? (West Germany is part of West.) "more complex"? Do you mean it's more complex to explain?

66. One entire page, beginning with "The" here and running down through "Western Germany" on the bottom line of the next page, seems repetitive and dispensable. I get the impression you are now laboring the point.

67. Perhaps you mean to say "security," not "unity."

Chapter IV

68. Seems to me last two sentences of paragraph could be cut out.

69. Seems to me last three sentences of this paragraph are unnecessary.

70. Probably stronger to say "Yet the Soviet Union has never abated its claim of being threatened."

71. The question mark is someone else's, but I too question "watershed." Moreover, the sentence doesn't lead smoothly into the next paragraph beginning near top of next page. Perhaps this suggestion would give you an idea for making your own improvement: First, in the preceding sentence, change "a constant" to "an unremitting." Then, instead of "Soviet policy will have reached a watershed," make it "Yet the Western nations must work just as unremittingly toward the day when . . . "

72. Suggest transposing these two sentences. A slight change of wording will be necessary: instead of "But while protecting," you could make it "On the other hand the agreement, while protecting . . ." and remove "it" from the next line.

73. Personally I think adding, "to be discussed later," would be preferable to the footnote. I notice that you carefully avoid all such references, and I agree that they should be used very sparingly if at all.

74. For clarity, could you say "the eastern border"?

75. "were" not "are"

76. "withdraw" and "retire." If you mean the same thing, suggest using the same word.

77. Suggest "Conducting offensive . . ." (Personally I don't see anything wrong with the way it was, that is, without "Conduct of.")

78. Perhaps "separate the Soviet and Western military establishments."

79. Suggest "within Germany to avoid tempting."

80. Do you need these three sentences? Do they add anything new?

81. Parallelism demands "Rather it is that" (not "because") to correspond with "But the reason is."

Chapter IV

82. At end of second line, suggest "are" not "may be." Your *first* "may be" is sufficient.

83. Suggest quoting "disengagement," the first time only.

84. This won't work. Suggest simplify to "Few terms so vaguely defined have produced so much controversy."

85. A small point, but "completely" before "demilitarized" wouldn't hurt.

86. Excellent paragraph up to this last sentence, which seems redundant in its midsection and fuzzy at the end. If I understand what you want to say, what about the following? "But the crowning confusion is that disengagement, no matter how it is defined, cannot be properly evaluated by the NATO countries because they are unsure about their common purposes." (Again, it would reduce perishability to put such statements in the past tense, but I'm not sure you would find this feasible here.)

87. Again trouble develops in the description of other people's arguments. "If this is true" seems to announce to the reader that you are through setting up the other fellow and now are about to destroy him. But apparently it's not so. The reader must know which side is talking at all times. This doesn't mean that every sentence has to have a qualifier; but those that don't should read from one to the other in such a natural way--through parallel constructions or other devices--that the reader understands the same speaker is still at it.

88. Again the reader doesn't know whether Kennan is responsible for the last statement only, or whether you've been giving Kennan's position throughout the paragraph. The result of such ambiguity can be that a reader comes away with an impression that you are attributing to your opponents (Kennan, Kippmann, or whoever) a much greater degree of unwisdom and self-contradiction than you are actually accusing them of. I don't say you shouldn't take on these gents and give them hell if you feel that way--only that the greatest care should be taken, in fairness to them, to you yourself, and to the bewildered reader, to state precisely what it is in their arguments you do not agree with. If you are prepared to be explicit and precise in your attributions, fine. If you wish to refer only briefly and generally to a line of argument without naming the proponents, that seems perfectly legitimate too. But I am convinced that long expositions of lines of argument, vaguely attributed in the main but with some individual's name flung in at one point ambiguously, can seriously weaken your effectiveness. I think passages like the present one would be better omitted entirely than presented in this manner. As a matter of fact, my impression is that too much space is being consumed with setting up what is "argued by some," relative to the space devoted to the author's reasoning.

Chapter IV

89. Self-contradictory or contradicting one another?

90. "also argued" by the same fellow or some other fellow?

91. I think you have said these things earlier.

92. The trouble with "Following" is that it can also mean "After." Also "have been advanced" would be much better after "plans," though not ideal even there.

93. "were"?

94. "consequence"? Do you mean denuclearization would go into effect and then result in withdrawal? Or that it would be perceived that both must take place together -- hardly a consequence?

95. Seems to me this section of the chapter is running down, and should be shortened wherever you can. Maybe you can reduce the wordage from here to the middle of the next page. You have some of it in another chapter, I believe.

96. Wouldn't "would be adequately guarded by" be after than "would benefit"? Also, does this part of the sentence hang together with the first part? Even if the West didn't base its defense so heavily on nuclear weapons, America might find it hard to convince the allies.

97. From here to the bottom of the next page might be eliminated or shortened.

98. "of forces"?

99. "where" not "when."

100. How about "schemes is not the Elbe but the Oder flowing between so-and-so and such-and-such."

101. Final sentence seems fairly weak because you've already made it pretty plain that Russia is _not_ concerned with stability. (E.g., V-9.)

99a. (Out of order -- refers to p.V-26, top). The first "were" can't be changed to "if" without doing the same in next line.

101a. "can" or "should"? Next sentence implies Soviet Union has offered unification in exchange for neutrality.

102. It took me quite a while to see the relevance of this argument to neutralization. If accurate, the following would clarify a bit: "Others argue for neutralization on the ground that the Soviet Union will never tolerate the liberalization of East. Germany through unification as long as there is a danger that the new unified Germany may join NATO."

Chapter IV

103. Sounds as if Hungary is outside the Orbit now. I don't understand the sentence. Nor the preceding two.

104. Is this the _Soviet_ proposal mentioned in first paragraph of section?

105. If _their_ offer is rejected by _us_? Rest of sentence doesn't seem to follow. Extremely unclear, or maybe I'm tired today.

106. Now the proposing seems to be on the part of the _West_. The switch is disconcerting and puzzling.

107. Now it appears that Moscow hasn't offered this after all, despite the first paragraph of the section! So perhaps you _were_ talking about a Western proposal earlier in the paragraph. First two pages of this section need clarifying all along the line.

108. Now, anew, it appears Russia has made a proposal. Just what the proposal is, who made it, and when, ought to be told _before_ the discussion of it begins.

109. Suggest "withdrew" or "were to withdraw," and equivalent change in next line.

110. Repeats earlier.

111. (Never mind this one.)

112. Mentioned earlier only in footnote, which some readers will have skipped. Suggest "Fritz Erler."

113. Antecedent unclear.

114. Punctuation? How about rearranging the words, thus: "has already proposed in its."

115. "Safe"? "Safe" for whom? Can anything be "safe"?

116. "were" instead of "is to be"; "were permitted" instead of "is to be permitted."

117. Is "flexible" the best word? Not being allowed to join anything is hardly "flexibility." I'm not sure "footloose" is just right either. How about "encouraged to go it alone"?

118. Puzzling. I thought the proposal was _not_ to let it join things. See preceding paragraph. See also bottom sentence on VI-10.

119. "conceivable"? or "tolerable in Western eyes"? or what? Also, if you mean "in all these circumstances simultaneously," I suggest you say this.

Chapter IV

Memorandum to Kissinger -- page 12

120. "measurable"? Unless you mean "measurable in advance" (an unlikely meaning), this is meaningless, for 1,000 years is "measurable."

121. Here you seem to change the ground rules. No.3 is not the same species as the others, and shouldn't be in here unless the introductory sentence refers to "*Negotiating* about a neutral belt."

122. No.6 is very like No.1. How about combining them?

123. Why "new" course? Don't your doubts apply to the old course too? I wonder if the passage beginning here and running almost to the end of the section is really necessary. See what you think of this: Skip from "all the principal questions" to "A neutral belt in Europe" four lines up from the bottom of VI-13. If there is anything in the intervening paragraphs that you especially like, perhaps you could condense it to a sentence or two.

124. Puzzling. I thought this entire section (see first paragraph on VI-1) was on the neutralization of a *unified* Germany,

125. Maybe so, but the logical conclusion of what you say here is that no national leader ought to pass the Curtain. Could you oppose this type of diplomacy without seeming to oppose travel?

126. (1) Won't work. Suggest moving "to demonstrate his good faith" after "Eisenhower" with commas fore and aft. Similarly at end of sentence "to report on his conversations" should go after "colleagues". (2) By the way, did you by any chance write this paragraph before the Paris fiasco?

127. I wonder if you should mention here, or somewhere in this section, that sentiment for federal institutions has been growing and has been gaining adherents in high places. Otherwise it may look as though we are mentioning other people's arguments only when we oppose them. Perhaps if you don't mention the North Atlantic movement here, its adherents who read your book might feel slighted.

128. Exact name?

129. Suggest delete as platitudinous and unnecessary.

130. "reject" or "oppose"? (Either is O.K.)

131. "our own house in order" is a cliché. Your very rare clichés seem to gravitate to the tail-ends of chapters.

Memorandum to Henry Kissinger

Subject: Chapter VI (Sections III, Local Aggression, and IV, Nth country)

Here are my comments on these two sections.
I will have to do the two final sections of Chapter VI
next week.

Chapter VI

1. Antecedent of "This" is not immediately and unmistakably clear. Blackmail? Probing action and blackmail? Probing action and blackmail and local aggression? The increase in the threat of all these things? Etc.

2. Clarity requires repeating "fear" in place of "hesitation."

3. Suggest "but also may cause them."

4. "their existence."

5. Suggest delete this sentence. It is almost completely a paraphrase of the preceding one.

6. "similar" is vague. Suggest simply "disarmament." Also suggest dating his proposal; he may make others before your book is read. Following is another possible approach to this sentence (choose which you like better): "Yet when Mr. Khrushchev proposed it again before the General Assembly of the United Nations in 195- his words-- despite the Soviet Union's far from pacific record in the interval-- were greeted . . . ."

7. Smoother to say "motives" instead of "sincerity."

8. I strongly urge that you introduce the new speaker-- and before he begins speaking.

9. "as more lastingly" is awkward and not very meaningful. Couldn't you say, "endangered even more by . . . than by . . . ."

10. The two "immediates" have an unclear relation to each other. Suggest simply end sentence "which are required at once."

11. The two "because" are quite out of place here, even misleading. Suggest "if he is sincere he is ignorant about the nature of the problem; if he is insincere he is presumably turning . . . ."

12. Would "especially" be clearer than "more"? Also "very low levels of disarmament" seems inconsistent (unless you explain) with the phrase "complete disarmament" in preceding sentence.

13. "At the other end of the spectrum" is unclear and I wonder if it's necessary.

14. A trivial point is that "weapon" (singular) would be more euphonious. A less trivial point is the apparent peculiarity of inspecting *weapon stockpiles* as a part of a control scheme for *total disarmament*. I suppose you mean, of course, inspecting to make sure there ain't any, but you say "inspection . . . of."

Chapter VI

15. For the U.S. to inspect other countries, or for other countries to inspect the U.S.? Or maybe this is for the U.S. to inspect the U.S.S.R. only, or vice versa. Four possibilities.

16. "surrender" might be better than "shift," but I also have general misgivings about this sentence. Elsewhere in the book you have strongly emphasized the need for unprecedented changes, including some surrenders of sovereignty and some alterations in international relationships. Therefore it seems to me you are not in a good position to object to an idea on grounds of upheaval--and my impression is that this sentence *seems* almost to be doing that. Possibly a slight change or two would keep other readers from getting the same impression.

17. I had naively assumed, I suppose, that the concept of *total disarmament* includes the abolishment of military forces as well as weapons. Maybe you need a clarifying sentence here, something like this: "Even if arms could be abolished, armies could not be." (That is, *if* that's a statement you would subscribe to; I don't know whether it's true or not.)

18. Suggest "enforced" not "controlled."

19. It seems to me that in this paragraph the "may," "can," "are," and "will" ought to be changed to "might," "could," "were," and "would." It is true that I have left alone quite a few sentences where you used the future tense for things that are only proposed; but some of them sound stranger than others. I would not like to suggest that you root out all future tenses in the book, for I think the reader often understands very well that you aren't saying what "will" come to pass, but only what "would." The real difficulties come when you mix the tenses, and I have tried to flag most of the mixtures. Even there, I haven't tried to be ironclad; the use of conditionals raises many tough little borderline questions and I haven't always known what to recommend. From here on, where I think the tense of verbs probably ought to be changed, I will simply say "tenses" and you can look at all the verbs in the vicinity.

20. Tenses. (Suggest "might be" and "would.")

21. "proscribe"?

22. Antecedent of "it" ambiguous. Also, tense of verb.

23. (1) Suggest not repeat "obvious"; parallelism isn't strong enough. (2) What would you think of a new subhead containing the words "international police force"?

24. Semicolon?

25. Suggest new paragraph here.

Chapter VI'

26. "conceivable" seems an understatement, since such situations have actually arisen. Also, suggest delete "too." Also, do you mean "seem to" or "dangerous to" the major powers?

27. "rises"? Also, do you want to mention the Congo?

28. "Arise" certainly seems the wrong word. "Succeed"? But the repetition of "notion" raises questions. How about "An enforcement agency could solve the problem of peaceful change only in a society . . . ." (But just what is the"problem of peaceful change"? I don't get a clear picture of how the enforcement agency does that, even in your "legal-norms" society. You may want to sharpen that.)

29. "always" or "generally"?

30. These next two sentences seem out of place. Suggest moving them to end of discussion. See my comment 36 pertaining to p.III-17.

31. Technical and unclear. Could you just say "even two-thirds majorities"?

32. Tenses.

33. Tenses. You might say "would likely prove."

34. Suggest "less responsive," not "more unresponsive."

35. Suggest "It would at least reduce the danger of wars that break out by accident or because . . . forces."

36. Suggest you start a new paragraph here and put in it a concise summary consolidating these two sentences with the two on page III-14a that I recommended moving here. Also, "expression of an end of tensions" is not very clear; I think you mean that it couldn't even come into existence unless tensions had ended; if so, sentence requires a pretty wrench of assumptions. Also "It would be effective" perhaps ought to be followed by "to keep the peace of the world," since we know it could be effective in minor-power disputes.

37. I don't think this further discussion of complete disarmament ought to be in this new section. It only confuses the matter and gets the section off to a bad start. The reader finds himself in an equilibrium discussion without knowing where total disarmament got sidetracked. Couldn't you start right out with the equilibrium discussion?

38. "they"?

Chapter VI

56. Another vague "This." The troublesome word "this" should never be used without making certain that its antecedent is immediately and unmistakably clear to a person reading fast. (Forgive the pedagogical ring. I should explain that I had to say the above so many times to one of our economist authors in the New York Metropolitan Region Study that we began calling it "Hall's Rule." The possibility of ambiguity in using "this" had never occurred to this man, but after hundreds of instances had been pointed out to him, he finally learned the lesson so well that he now tells me he is forever noticing such ambiguities in other people's writing.) The same rule applies equally to the troublesome word "it."

57. Couldn't you eliminate the unhelpful footnote and simply say in the text, "laid down in our earlier discussion of arms control in Europe." Also, in the line above, the noun modified by "embodying" has to be hunted for; no one will hunt for it, but a little imprecision clings to the sentence. How about substituting "in accordance with."

58. Suggest deleting final sentence as unnecessary and anticlimactic.

59. Wouldn't "Nth," as in footnote, be better? "N-th" looks as though a letter or two have been omitted.

60. The "This Rule" applies equally to "these." Does it mean these eleven, or these eight, or these nineteen? Reader can't know until he reads further. I suggest "Of these nineteen countries, six are . . . ."

61. "powers"?

62. Suggest "A country allied with."

63. Suggest "we must distinguish two sets of relationships." ("Assessing," I grant, acts as a noun rather than an adjective, and therefore we do not quite have here a "dangling participle"; nevertheless "assessing" is much more closely related to the party _doing_ the assessing ("we") than to the "two sets.")

64. Suggest more parallelism. Bringing in "Nth countries" explicitly in the third element makes it sound somehow as though it were a _non-Nth_ country that is instigating war or blackmail in the first two elements.

64a. Where does your summary stop and the new material start?

65. Since "invitation to disaster" sounds a little hackneyed, how about "would be like jumping in a fiery furnace" or something?

Chapter VI

66. Technical, unless you adequately defined it when
you re-edited.

67. Tenses.

68. "was," I think. Also, isn't this sentence a paraphrase
of the preceding one?

69. Puzzling switch, as though a passage had been omitted
by mistake. What aggressor? What alliance? What relevance to rest
of paragraph, above.

70. Repeats earlier (see p.IV-2). The earlier statement
should be in mind when considering present wording. And this sentence
should be better related to earlier part of paragraph.

71. Should you meet the question that will be in some
readers' minds at this point: "What about madmen?"

72. Suggest avoiding another "If" here. More importantly,
I think you can tighten this page, which now rambles. How about this:
"for a somewhat different reason, namely, that Nth countries will not
be able to protect their nuclear weapons. None of the smaller powers
will have the resources to create much more than a rudimentary attack-
ing force. The elaborate combination of warning, hardening, and
mobility needed to survive a surprise attack seems beyond their capa-
bility. Therefore a symmetrical spread of nuclear weapons, if it
miraculously occurred, would be unlikely to produce a nuclear standoff
among the smaller powers. On the contrary, in order to safeguard
their hard-won nuclear capabilities, Nth countries would find them-
selves under nearly irresistible pressures" (picking up at fourth
line of next page). (The technical terms in the above are presumed
to have been adequately defined by you in your re-editing.)

73. Nothing new in these three sentences. You've already
dealt with them. Suggest letting them fall-out. You might, however,
start the next paragraph: "So there are sharp dangers in the unchecked
diffusion of nuclear weapons--but how shall the diffusion be checked?"

74. "powers," "power." Undesirable repetition because
same word in different senses.

75. "non-nuclear"? You mean weapons capable of transmitting
nuclear war-heads. Would _they_ be non-nuclear? This paragraph not
clear.

76. Too many dashes. Suggest eliminating "again with
suitable controls" at end and making other dash matter read "--particu-
larly controls—" the U.S. and the Soviet Union, and _again_ with suitable controls...

77. Suggest "which would join," preceded by comma.

Chapter VI

78. Suggest "Nth powers themselves."

79. Logic of "On the other hand"? What argument is this new paragraph making?

80. "difference in motive"?

81. "with the possible exception of China" belongs after "Nth countries," if I take your meaning rightly.

82. Couldn't you relate these measures to the "a, b, c" of p.IV-14? After all, you've pulverized "a", but the reader still has, or should have, "b" and "c" in his mind. Also how about changing "the NATO structure described above" to "the new and unified NATO structure advocated in Chapter --."

83. See comment 74.

84. Suggest "this establishment."

85. "with more confidence"?

86. Tenses?

87. Tenses?

88. "by a nuclear opponent."

89. "by a NATO system such as the one described earlier"?

90. "them"?

90a. I wonder if this sentence, and the rest of this paragraph, shouldn't be worked into the middle of IV-25, or maybe the bottom of IV-26? Otherwise we're in the position of conceding China's membership in nuclear club, then discussing China vis-a-vis Europe, then saying wistfully that it would be nice if they joined the non-nuclear club, and finally painting a blood-chilling picture of the consequences of its membership in the nuclear club. The first and last stages belong logically together.

91. Tenses are consistent in this paragraph, and I would not mention this matter except that if the present tense, as used in this sentence, implies that something is already going on, when in fact it's not, then maybe it should be looked at carefully. I'd make it "would not be a symmetrical process."

92. Too flat? Maybe something like "we might find it possible to withdraw . . ."

Chapter VI

93. Suggest "might explore the idea of restrictions."

94. Tenses.

95. Tenses.

96. Comma after develops.

97. Are these last two sentences only laboring the point?

98. "them"? You really mean the "diffusion," don't you, rather than the "weapons."

99. "policies"?

100. "face," I suppose.

101. Tenses.

102. Only one thing puzzled me about this final part, beginning on p.IV-28: it seems almost too important to be tacked onto the end of the Nth-country section. Doesn't it have importance far beyond the Nth-country problem? This is only a diffident comment. I don't have any strong conviction about it. You seem to have thought out your organization very carefully.

103. Funny, I don't remember your making this point, but I certainly won't insist it isn't there. It probably is.

Last two sections of Chapter VI

1. "next to impossible" to make, or to find in the writings of others? If the former, suggest ending sentence after "possible." If the latter, suggest "to find" instead of "to come by."

2. Suddenly a different kind of "it." Suggest "the Administration decided."

3. The ambiguous "it." Suggest "Though the conference," and at the end of the sentence, "before the talks ended."

4. In view of preceding sentence, suggest deleting "to defend well-entrenched positions."

5. I think some readers will be thinking of "test ban" in the sense of a possible international agreement, others in the sense of our own moratorium, and still others in the sense of a permanent unilateral ban yet to be realized. I think you generally mean an international ban, but perhaps you should make sure the reader understands. Perhaps the best thing to do is to add something to the preceding paragraph (at top of this page). First a sentence telling what the Russians did--whether they too called a moratorium. Then a sentence saying whether negotiations have continued, whether the U.S. or U.S.S.R. has proposed a permanent ban--in other words, the latest international situation. I think that in doing this you may be able to clarify what the international battle in the U.S. is about--whether the ban proponents are trying to get us to accept a Russian proposal, whether they're trying to get us to propose a ban, or what--and also to clarify what is meant when you use the term "test ban."

6. Does one "propose" a reason or act on it? How about "employed" instead of "proposed"? Also, suggest underlining "fact."

7. Many arguments or many people?

8. "this measure" is not very clear, but perhaps will be if you do anything about my comment no.5. Maybe specific language wouldn't hurt: "that if the United States and the Soviet Union failed to agree on a test ban," etc. (That is, if this is what you mean.)

9. "it may be useful to sum up the arguments on both sides" comes here as a surprise, because at this point it seems to the reader that you have just been doing that. The surprise is heightened when the first argument given is one that assuredly was mentioned just above (a start toward arms control). Suggest eliminating the duplication and finding some way of reducing the surprise. I think "to spell out" instead of "to sum up" would fix it, provided you eliminate the duplication. Also, I suggest a subhead of some kind here, "The Case for the Test Ban," and its opposite number when you turn to the other side. (But see my comment 57, below.)

10. Suggest semicolons after "eliminated" and after "missiles."

11. "more discriminating" than what? surely not more
than air-defense weapons, just mentioned. "Discriminating" is a
technical word. Suggest you provide a built-in definition. Let
me guess at one, and you can substitute an accurate one: "and
tactical nuclear weapons that can discriminate between military
and civilian targets." (I doubt that this is a good definition.)

12. Suggest "it is admitted that they would be very
difficult to develop without benefit of testing."

13. If "easier to develop," like "less costly," leads
to the "than," you should remove the comma. Comma implies some
other meaning.

14. Not clear why a technological breakthrough in defen-
sive measures would tempt a surprise attack, unless you mean the
breakthrough and the attack would be executed by the same country—
in which case the sentence should be more specific.

15. I assume that you will have earlier defined the
technical word "discrimination," but even so, perhaps the word
ought to go in quotes here. Or maybe you could leave off the quotes
but throw in a qualifying word ("target discrimination"?) that would
remind the reader of the technical meaning.

16. After the first sentence, how about something like
this: "The argument runs as follows: A test ban would inevitably
reduce reliance on nuclear weapons. Indeed, if prolonged, it would
mean . . . ."

17. You obviously meant to delete "it is held that."

18. First sentence might be sharper. For one thing it
should relate the inspection system to the test ban at the very
outset. (Inspection systems have been proposed for other purposes
than to prevent testing.)

19. Unclear. Also, did Soviet make this proposal re
test ban?

20. "Exponent" may do if you stretch a point, but it
doesn't seem best in this case.

21. Does this start "The Case Against the Test Ban"?
Do the following arguments reflect your own views, or only summarize
"the major arguments," as promised at middle of p.V-3. Or, are you
here rebutting the case for the test ban, *before* beginning the formal
case for the other side. Reader should understand these things as
he begins this paragraph.

22. "identifying" throws off the parallelism. Why not
omit?

23. None in U.S.?

24. Puzzling, because this paragraph is on underground shots only. Yet this last sentence says "nuclear testing." What about oceanic shots, etc. Anyhow, there's another thing about this sentence: it contradicts itself. If explosions below half a kiloton are undetectable how could the system police a _complete ban?_ (Even if not "_too_ useful," the small tests might be made.)

25. Specifically, which conclusions? The conclusion apparently referred to in the preceding paragraph is the one I found unclear.

26. Tenses (whole paragraph).

27. Suggest starting sentence with "In the range of one to twenty." Also, are we still confining the earthquakes to the Soviet Union?

28. Suggest separate sentence. However, this explanatory remark seems unnecessary. The figures show that.

29. "locate . . . in areas" is momentarily misleading. How about "cannot pinpoint the unidentified earth tremor, but only narrow its location down to an area . . . ."

30. Vary _from_ 78 to 195? "Vary 78" is ambiguous--could mean the gap between one estimate and another in a _particular_ instance. Anyhow, "vary" seems imprecise--seems to say the 78 is a minimum figure and 195 a maximum, but apparently each is an average.

31. (1) "However" seems imprecise here. You've just shown that the system wouldn't work anyhow. How about: "But even if the task were technically feasible, the fact would remain that the Soviet Union has refused to accept hundreds of . . . ." I don't like that much, but it will serve to illustrate the reader's difficulty with the sentence. Was Macmillan only trying to break the deadlock caused by the Soviet refusal, or also seeking to overcome the technical impossibility of investigating everything? (2) The reader is in danger of losing touch with the major train of argument. I take it all this is presenting the Case against the Ban. Macmillan is on which side? If you revert at times to the Case for the Ban, reader should be kept posted.

32. Tenses.

33. Comma needed after "decoupling."

34. "Now being negotiated" makes for a highly perishable product. See also bottom of p.V-15.

35. "all intents and purposes" a cliché.

(Y)

36. "discovered capable" is fuzzy. How about "explosions, recently discovered, are" or perhaps better still, "New methods of ... are capable."

37. Tenses. Also, do you need "i.e., undecoupled"?

38. "most important" is ambiguous.

39. "or 100"? Also, you said 150 above.

40. Suggest "But" before "measured."

41. "present"? Also, in next line, suggest dash after "testing."

42. "present"?

43. "Similarly"? Also, "due" is an adjective and must modify a noun. Suggest: "Besides, some evasions may succeed not through the difficulty of detection but through the difficulty of identifying the violator."

44. Suggest "and monitoring." No comma needed after "submarine." Also "relatively easily" is not very euphonious. And the "it" in the next sentence is momentarily ambiguous. Therefore I suggest this substitute for both sentences: "A test conducted in the ocean and supervised by submarine might be easily discovered but would not be so easily traced to the testing country."

45. Suggest "(a) Ordinary underground explosions below ... (b) To control ordinary ..." ("Undecoupled" seems hardly necessary. Kind of a double negative.)

46. Perishability? Maybe "have been," etc., in case situation has changed by 1961?

47. Not a "concession by the West." It's "hailed by the West," isn't it?

48. Sounds as though the test ban has been agreed to. See my comment 5, above.

49. But aren't you going back to the Case for the Ban? I keep expecting all this to be a summary of the Case *against*. It's not always easy to distinguish between your own arguments and your summary of the major arguments made by others.

50. a "factor" of?

51. Perishability? Do we have to say "now" in a book? Seems a more suitable word for a newspaper editorial. (I will stop commenting in this vein, for if you agree to reconsider such language you will not need reminding at each spot.)

52. "exponents"? See my comment 20, above.

53. Comma after "evade" is essential.

54. Suggest moving "were" to a spot after "intentions" and placing comma after "negotiations."

55. Punctuation.

56. Move comma to end of line. Question mark at end of paragraph? Punctuation: I am not by any means marking all the sentences which I would punctuate differently if I were editing the manuscript. I am marking only the ones that seem particularly reader-stopping. You will no doubt improve the punctuation, spelling, etc., in a lot of cases that I considered unnecessary to flag.

57. I am about to conclude that you are not really giving summaries of the major arguments on both sides, but are (1) giving the major arguments for a ban, and (2) knocking them down. There is nothing wrong with this procedure, but I suppose I should withdraw my suggestion (comment 9) that you insert two subheads, one the Case for the Ban and the other the Case against the Ban.

58. "they"?

59. "for that matter"? Does it refer to Germany only, or France too?

60. You've already said "Finally" near bottom of preceding page.

61. Slow reading unless you put comma after "them."

62. Suggest "to impose a cut-off on production, and to reduce stockpiles." Otherwise "cut-off" looks at first like the subject of the sentence.

63. Tenses.

64. Since it isn't "inadequate only because of," I suggest clarifying by starting sentence "It is quite another to urge a demonstrably inadequate control scheme only . . . "

65. "it" is ambiguous, at least momentarily. Anyhow, if it means "ban," do you "inspect" a ban? How about "such a ban would be infinitely easier to enforce by inspection."

66. Have we offered it, or have we accepted their offer? Nowhere is this really clear, so far as I recall.

67. Tenses.

68. Are you now laboring the argument a bit? I seem to recall that you have made some of these points already.

69. "an"?

70. "atmospheric testing"? I first took this to mean high in the atmosphere, but perhaps you simply mean any testing except underground, undersea, or outer space.

71. Not a very smooth sentence. Does "significant" modify "vistas" or "development"? Does "technical brilliance" refer to the arguments of the opponents ("vistas" are not easy to think of as "brilliant" in that sense) or to the blueprints for new weapons?

72. "for" as a conjunction usually needs a comma before it; otherwise it may check the reader by seeming momentarily to be a preposition. And wouldn't "least relevant" be slightly better than "most irrelevant"?

73. "prove as" or "prove to be"?

74. The weak "it." I suppose here you mean agreement among Americans--or do you mean agreement among free-world countries--rather than agreement with the Russians. If the first meaning is correct, how about "As a result, Americans have found it difficult to agree about . . . ."

75. The sentence "Two conclusions follow" doesn't belong any more with the first conclusion than the second. You might therefore make it the final sentence of the preceding paragraph. As it is, the reader keeps looking for the second conclusion in the same paragraph with the first.

76. Didn't Jefferson say "liberty" rather than "security"?

77. The subject of this sentence ("idea") is too far from its verb ("requires") for easy reading. How about starting out with "Not every technological advance," then deleting "that" from the next line, then inserting after "arms race" the following: "--but these notions require."

78. "carry" is much too far from "to the extreme." Suggest "Though they have argued correctly that a purely strategic approach may prove self-defeating, they have carried the argument to the extreme . . . ."

79. "Or else" seems a little unsound, since they may carry the argument to the extreme and impatiently dismiss at the same time. Also, the next sentence might well begin with "Thus."

80. These next two sentences are flabby and unclear. You've just had a paragraph about folks that go too far in dismissing strategic considerations. This sentence appears to begin along the same line, but suddenly the reader finds that it's the military man who is doing the stressing. So the reader now assumes that this paragraph is going to be on the military mind, and when the second sentence starts out "Stressing," etc., he thinks this too will be the military men, but no, he's wrenched back again to the folks who were discussed in the preceding paragraph. If I understand what you're trying to say, the second sentence doesn't belong here at all, but in the preceding paragraph. You might change the first sentence about like this: "Many military experts, on the other hand, have pointed to certain features of arms control--especially the reduction of striking power and the exchange of military information--and have seen in them an inevitable weakening of our strategic position." The paragraph jumps back and forth too much at present. I have a further comment on the paragraph, too; much of what it says has already been said in the first paragraph on page VI-3. Sounds as though you're circling around a bit.

81. "maligned"? Also, will most readers know who Coolidge is?

82. Suggest eliminate semicolon and "it," and substitute "but."

83. "only with one of two" is not very clear or smooth. And "either" and "or" can't be in two separate sentences, How about: "Soviet proposals indicate either that the Soviet leaders have as much . . . , or that they are using . . . ."

84. Perceived by the Russians, I suppose. Or do you mean perceived by either side?

85. Unclear sentence. For example, does "insist on Soviet good faith" mean insist that they must have it, or that they do have it. One trouble with the sentence is that it makes a sudden shift from Soviet meaningless proposals to our *own* drawbacks. Now it is *we* who are to blame for their irresponsible negotiations.

86. Attraction to the Russians, of course, but perhaps you should make this clear in early part of sentence.

87. Meaning of "highly implicated"? Also, in next sentence, "thus" doesn't seem appropriate.

88. The paragraph just ended is wordy and repetitive. You could improve it by cutting out about a third of the sentences, I suspect.

89. The chapter is becoming repetitive.

90. We are saying the same things over. The economic development point is, I think, one that you haven't made before, but it ought to be introduced better. (I find your discussion of the economic development argument very excellent, by the way.)

91. In what examination? At first glance it looks as if you mean you own discussion.

92. A good paragraph, but the first sentence (1) repeats earlier wording, (2) is a cliché, and (3) throws me into a jet-black melancholy, because I doubt that this country can ever "get its house in order intellectually." We just aren't made that way.

Memorandum

August 23, 1960

To: Henry A. Kissinger

From: Max Hall

Subject: Chapter VII, "Of Political Evolution."

In sentence construction this is one of your better chapters.
It reads pretty smoothly.

Though I don't pretend to give a general critique of your
views and proposals, I think I ought to express some misgivings about
the part of the chapter in which you discuss the ways in which we can
influence political developments in the new countries, beginning on
page III-29. My idea is that you might be able to improve your per-
suasiveness if you know a reader's reactions.

On III-29 you say, "There are three respects in which we
can influence political developments in the new nations: by our
technical and economic assistance; by our domestic performance; and
by the dynamism of our convictions." Then you elaborate these. Your
program seems to me anticlimactic when read in the light of the earlier
part of this chapter, in which you argue at considerable length that
economic development does not inevitably lead to political liberal-
ization but tends to entrench the political system which brought it
about. I half expected some bold and novel scheme for getting there
fustest with the "political aid" that would precede and shape the
economic development. If no such scheme occurs to you, I don't blame
you for that, but I can't avoid the impression that you built some
Great Expectations.

In your elaboration of the three respects in which we can
influence the new nations, you say very well some things that need
to be said. But do they add up to enough? Let me mention each in
turn.

(a) Greater economic assistance. Yes. But on the surface
seems a bit ironic that you here give economics as one of the ways
in which we "can influence political developments" when earlier you
were at such great pains to show that economic development doesn't
influence political development very much. I think you might wish to
reconcile these two approaches. Perhaps the reconciliation has been
given elsewhere, when you said that typically a new country begins
with democratic ideas--that is, it already has them and therefore
economic advance will help preserve them. But if this is your justi-
fication for advocating greater economic aid in order to influence
political developments, perhaps you should bring it out sharply here.
I wonder, too, whether you deliberately omitted discussion of channel-
ing more aid through the U.N. or the Western Alliance nations. I
also have misgivings about the loose, publicly-misunderstood terms
"aid" and "assistance." I am sure you can't avoid them but you might
clarify them. People think of aid simply as giving away money to

Chapter VII

foreigners. Much of our aid is in the form of loans, as you well know. I am a little surprised that you use the journalistic terminology without drawing distinctions between different types of aid.

(b) Domestic "performance." I happen to agree enthusiastically with your main points; but in one respect you have a paradox that you don't quite resolve, though I will admit you try ingeniously. This is the paradox of giving domestic performance as one of the principal ways in which we can influence other countries and at the same time saying our main motive should be domestic. You insist (III-33) that "we are not putting on a play for the benefit of a foreign audience," and that "we must overcome discrimination above all because of its impact on the mind of America." But why do we need this impact on the mind of America? The implication is that we need it so that we will be convincing to ourselves, and therefore convincing to other countries. If this is so, we are back to the international motivation after all. Also, you don't say what we ought to do if, in our domestic performance, a certain choice would have a "good" impact on the mind of America but a "bad" one on world opinion, or vice versa. To me, your disavowal of the priority of foreign considerations, though quite understandable, seems more expedient than convincing. I doubt that giving a priority to either domestic or foreign can be convincingly advocated in the kind of world that now exists. Perhaps what you ought to do is demonstrate their inextricability. (This matter, I think, is analogous to other question: "Do we help other countries to serve our interest or theirs?" The only satisfactory answer is that we serve both interests and they can't be separated, because we have finally realized that the interests of one nation now have become inseparable from the interests of others. I have another small comment on "domestic performance": why "domestic" only? Why not our national performance, including our international behavior too?

(c) "Dynamism of our convictions." Is it possible for a people to deepen their convictions simply by realizing that the deepening is a desirable thing? If not, then it looks as though you are asking Americans to raise their voices, to get more excitement into their utterances, to substitute fervor for incantations. Maybe you have in mind that if people pretend zeal they may eventually infuse themselves? Reminds me of the eminent old theologian who once tried to persuade me to join his church; when I objected that I didn't agree with some of the statements in the creed that I would have to swear to, he suggested that I swear to the creed anyway, because the important thing was to get into the church, after which I might come to believe the creed.

But I take it that you really want Americans to believe more deeply, not just argue more persuasively (like salesmen) with the foreign students on the campus. How does one go about believing more deeply?

Actually, I think there are some things that we do believe deeply--perhaps as deeply as ever--such as the importance of free

Chapter VII

speech and a fair trial. Maybe what you really mean to say is that we have not totally lost our convictions; that we have, however, come to take them for granted; that we are inarticulate concerning them; and that we'd better learn to be articulate, and in a hurry. You may be saying this, but the comparison with the Victorians doesn't seem to help you; it only gives the impression that we are bland as hell and that we must lose our blandness (by means not fully spelled out). Or perhaps you mean to say that our love of freedom and diversity is being gradually weakened by trends toward conformity, and that we can reverse the trends if we understand what is happening to us. In any case, by now you see my difficulties with this part of the manuscript.

Aren't there some other ways in which we can influence the new nations?

Here are my detailed comments:

1. "much less."

2. Awkward. Just what effort? To solve our problems, or to solve the problems of the new nations? And "frequently . . . essentially" gives the sentence too adverbial a sound, somehow.

3. Footnote leaves me undecided how much of the line of argument to attribute to these gents.

4. Can't tell whether Rostow was giving his own conclusions or reporting what Americans tend to expect. The footnote says "these views," but in such cases I often find myself unsure how far to go in the text. As a general proposition I dread brief summaries of other people's books; not that you can or should avoid them--but that you should be sure the reader doesn't attribute either more or less to the author cited than the author actually said. Would the author himself consider the summary a fair one?

5. Suggest omit "of."

6. Suggest inserting "its" before "support" and also before "resistance."

7. Meaning of "it"? The "theory" or "democracy"?

8. "impede."

9. Awkward if not incorrect syntax. You have "buttressed" modifying "degree," but was it really the "degree of capital accumulation" that was buttressed. If not, we have here a dangling participle.

10. "accident"?

Chapter VII

11. "its"? You must mean the managerial group but it
sounds as if you mean "private ownership."

12. "managers."

13. Could you omit "technically"?

14. The weak "it" sounds momentarily as if it refers to
"respect for the critical faculty."

15. I see what you mean, but it is peculiar to think of
exercising something before you've got it.

16. I assume that you mean other people studied Hegel
and Kant, rather than their own studies. If so, suggest "Studying
Hegel and Kant," and in the next sentence, for parallelism, "Studying
physics and chemistry."

17. Random comment: Today the study of physics may tend,
more than in past eras, to bring people face to face with political
questions.

18. Random comment: I'm not at all sure that nineteenth-
century thought assumed this notion to be universal.

19. Why "for example"?

20. "same group"? The bourgeoisie? Or the most talented people?

21. "static"? In what sense?

22. "to ignore that" seems awkward to me; maybe it's O.K.

23. "constitution" or "constitutions"? And in what sense
do you use the word?

24. "successes"?

25. "did not prevail" is quite ambiguous. How about "faded
out"?

26. Is "mechanism" too mechanistic a term to fit your view
of history?

27. "Units" may be the best word for the purpose, but it
doesn't call up a very specific picture. Do you mean to embrace
groups as diverse as nations, parties, cities, tribes, individuals?

Chapter VII

28. The weak "it" follows another kind of "it" in the preceding sentence and may be taken at first to mean the same thing. Also, in next line, "this" goes back to a series of closely related actions and is not immediately and unmistakably related to one specific one; therefore the language is slightly less than pure.

29. Sentence doesn't hang together neatly. Suggest "Communism, both as a road to economic development and a type of political organization, is an alternative to Western democracy, and not an evolutionary form of it."

30. The weak "it" seems momentarily to refer to Communism. Suggest "the two systems are highly unlikely to converge." These weak "its" ("it is likely," "it is possible," "it is difficult," etc.) should not be absolutely taboo, because sometimes they are useful expressions, but they should never be employed closely following a noun which will still be hanging in the reader's mind, else he is likely to endow the "it" with the qualities of that noun, and will have to make a small distracting adjustment later in the sentence.

31. I could give a similar treatise on the treacherous word "which," whose antecedent here could be "loss," "fervor," or "Soviet Union." The task of determining the real antecedent, even if fairly easy to do, ought not to be imposed on the reader, who presumably would prefer to give his entire mind to what you are saying and not how you are saying it.

32. Is there a sharp difference between "the point of view of evolution" and "a historical perspective"? If so, the distinction is not glaring, to say the least.

33. This sentence might be taken to refer to France, just mentioned. If so, won't it look strange, since the personal leadership in France was institutionalized into another personal leadership (Napoleon)? Also, the "it" at the end of the line is puzzling, because it seems to mean "personal leadership"; yet this interpretation is not consistent with the rest of the sentence.

34. If the preceding "it" was unclear, so is this one.

35. And this one too.

36. "constantly" seems to imply at the same rate.

37. Random comment: Perhaps this is an excessively strong statement. How about the British Isles, for example?

38. "hope" for whom?

39. Does "in any case" add anything? It seems weak to me.

Chapter VII

40. What exactly is the quality you refer to? Also, "least tangible" is simpler than "most intangible." Also, what's the meaning of "oppressive"?

41. Random comment: This may be so, but I have misgivings about it. Older nations, sure of themselves, are not usually thrilled with foreign advice about their political structure either.

42. Suggest omit comma.

43. The sentence beginning "The end of" can be mistakenly taken to apply to India, just mentioned. How about "has typically brought with it"?

44. Slightly better, perhaps, to put commas or dashes where I have marked "x".

45. Suggest new paragraph beginning with "Obviously." The two sentences preceding could be run into the preceding paragraph.

46. Random comment: Well, some people do try to describe it; this seems a pretty strong statement.

47. An unclear "its" followed shortly by an unclear "it." Do they refer to "concern" or "economic development"?

48. "dynamism of our over-all performance" is pretty sweeping, not very sharp.

49. "infusing" what into what? Conviction into values?

50. I would either put the two consequences in a single sentence or precede them with "First" and "Second."

51. Punctuation.

52. Something is left out.

53. Ditto.

54. I'm not sure I follow this statement. Perhaps it depends on what kind of deity is envisioned. Why would divine right limit a king's authority over mere <u>human beings</u>?

55. Here, "it" is pretty clear, but even so, the sentence would be stronger if you repeated "political power."

56. But here is a very muddled "it." <u>What</u> has been the function? The vague "This" of the preceding sentence seems to refer to a whole declaratory sentence.

Chapter VII

57. By "these ingredients" you must mean the four factors that have limited governmental power, and I advise saying so in order to preclude the impression you mean something less. But I am puzzled, because apparently you are saying that "technical incompetence" (the first factor) is missing in the new countries. I am under the impression that technical incompetence is the thing they have plenty of. The first few sentences of this paragraph seem very odd to me.

58. Of course it *can* be a matter of life and death, but I wonder if the present statement isn't a bit strong. There are places where social schisms are deep but where the classes don't kill one another.

59. "The," I suppose. But the sentence doesn't seem to follow very well from the preceding one. It would seem to me that whether a majority decides to destroy a minority doesn't hinge very clearly on whether the minority can hope some day to become a majority.

60. Suggest inserting "were" before "unavailable" (in view of the "not" in the preceding clause).

61. This paragraph seems, on the surface at least, to contradict the spirit of your earlier passages in which you maintained that education doesn't go hand in hand with democracy.

62. Suggest omitting "type of" to straighten out the small difficulties over the agreement between subject and verb.

63. This ringing paragraph strikes one reader as sounding a little like political oratory. I wish that the meat of your message could be delivered in homelier but more precise terms. I have also a comment of another kind: Here you are saying that we must "work with energy and dedication in the new countries to encourage institutions which protect human dignity," but exactly what should we do? Later in the chapter, when you name the three things we can do, they add up to economic assistance, domestic performance, and deepening our beliefs. Therefore, sweeping declarations like the present one seem to be reduced to high-sounding words without substance.

64. I get an impression that the logic of this sentence is subtly awry. Hope I can explain what I mean. First, you've already argued *against* "the claims of those who rely on the impact of economic evolution." Now, you are using their claims, which you've already rejected, to support a statement with which presumably you do not really agree but which fits nicely into the present context, that economic assistance is a kind of political manipulation.

65. "object to . . . objectives."

66. Suggest underlining "no."

Chapter VII

67. This sentence, "We should show restraint in the consequences we draw from our preferences," hasn't much meaning for me. I don't know how one "draws" consequences from preferences, nor what "restraint" would signify. I can see that preferences do have consequences, but not that we draw them; they happen.

68. I wonder if you'd prefer this way of saying it: "Instead, they justified their imperialism on the ground that it was designed to help the subject peoples toward self-government. However hypocritical this justification may have been, it proved . . . ."

69. What is the antecedent of "which"?

70. Another "which" without a clear, specific antecedent. Suggest "progress--the very values that were invoked to overthrow colonialism."

71. This sentence is fairly hard to read, especially if the comma remains after "active." I suggest "was most active where European rule was most enlightened and not where it was most oppressive."

72. Would you agree to "least effective" instead of "most ineffective"?

73. "rights of man." (Things like that, however, you have of course caught without me.)

74. "counsel of despair" is a cliché.

75. Not a powerful sentence. Perhaps you should begin it with "Otherwise," to link it properly with the preceding sentence. Besides, the last part of the sentence is unsharp in that it says two things will prove inconsistent with each other but doesn't say which will prevail. (True, the *next* sentence gives the clue, but meanwhile the reader will be wasting a speck of energy on an unnecessary problem.) By the way, you meant to cut out "these values."

76. Some difficulties with this paragraph, which I think should be reexamined in toto. For one thing, the first sentence doesn't seem logical; why *isn't* our choice between affirming or not affirming? What you really mean, I take it, is that if we choose the second alternative someone else will affirm in our place.

77. Semicolon after "performance." I've already commented on this paragraph in the introduction to this memo.

78. The "our" and the "we" produce a peculiar effect, for apparently they do not mean the same thing. I interpret the "our" to mean H.A.K., and the "we" as all of us (author and readers in a cozy group).

Chapter VII

79. Of course your secretary has already caught spelling mistakes in footnote.

80. "National" probably means we aid each country separately, but at first reading it could mean we do it alone instead of in a group such as the U.N.

81. Tenses.

82. Triumphed where? In Western countries? In darkest Africa? You must mean Western countries, in which case where were the thousands of missionaries sent from? And what did the missionaries fail to accomplish, exactly?

83. Rapid acceptance where? In the West, or in the new nations?

84. Too flat a statement? How about "For many in the . . . "

85. Meaning of "consolidation"?

86. The "it" evidently refers to "performance," but the relation seems a bit unnatural. How about "the motive for our actions"?

87. Already discussed in the introduction to this memo.

88. Instead of "it," "freedom" should be repeated.

89. Suggest inserting "of" before "economic."

90. Economic evolution in what countries? Do you mean a "theory of economic evolution"? And in next line, by whom is it "thought to be"? This is an awkward and unclear, therefore unper-suasive, sentence.

91. "contributing to"?

92. Though I like short sentences, here's a case in which I recommend combining two into one. Otherwise, the first of the two, beginning "It is important," seems a non-sequitur from the preceding sentence.

93. "misunderstanding" and "understanding" are not parallel in any way, and therefore their juxtaposition is weak not strong. I would change one of them.

94. The "which" is too far from its antecedent, and I suggest eliminating the "which" and its entire clause, and inserting "Soviet" before "slogans."

95. "Both" is inept because you haven't mentioned two of . . . anything. Also, you seem to be placing Mr. Dulles among the champions of the neutralists; did you mean to?

Chapter VII

96. The "first 150 years" would bring us to 1939; what about the First World War? Is it your point that our alliance with the British at that time was not brought about by any British policy?

97. Unclear sentence. Do you mean "If Britain had refused to enter the two World Wars unless America did too, the course . . . ."

98. "appreciation"?

99. Asked about *what* satellite orbit?

100. "in kind but not in nature"? These two words mean about the same thing, don't they, in contrast to "in degree"?

101. Suggest inserting "their" at end of line.

102. How about "Goodwill may" instead of "Goodwill will"?

103. "attraction" of whom for whom? I suppose it must be "our attraction to the non-committed." But I wonder if Americans are really much attracted to the non-committed; if so I haven't noticed it.

104. Our "deepest problem" in the context of this chapter only, or literally the deepest we have to our name? By the way, what does "deepest" mean here? Hardest to solve? Gravest? I get very little meaning from the statement.

105. The worst kind of repetition. Same word--different meanings.

106. "nature" of policy? Unclear sentence to end a chapter on. How about "attitudes toward policy-making"? Aside from this, the last few pages of the chapter strike me as too wordy; I think they labor the blandness point which you have made over and over, and are planning to make again in your final chapter. These last few pages fall back into the aphoristic, sententious style that I commented on in the first chapter. In pages like these, your book loses its power. I think you should go through them with a hostile critical eye and retain only those statements that are essential to new lines of argument. Almost all of your chapters would be stronger if you could bring yourself to end them quicker.

MEMORANDUM

August 26, 1960

TO: Henry A. Kissinger

FROM: Max Hall

SUBJECT: The Final Chapter, Called "The Policymaker and the Intellectual."

My reaction to this chapter is that it is a weak and wordy
ending to a good book. The fresh and the valuable ideas that it
contributes to the book could be stated in a few paragraphs or a few
pages. I am very sorry to make such statements because I want to be
helpful and I suspect that such statements will not be very helpful--
especially if you are committed to the chapter in your own mind anyhow.
Your publisher might love the chapter; many of your readers, who feel
quite rightly that things are terribly wrong in the world and in
Washington, who are seeking [INSERT WORD HERE] culprits to blame,
and who have never been personally involved in the complexities of
foreign policy in the federal government, might love the chapter; for
it has controversy, attack, protest, eloquence. But even though you
and Max Ascoli and Harper's may not agree with a word I say, here is
exactly the way I see it:

The strength of your book is that along with condemning
everything in sight you stick your neck out with concrete proposals,
proposals that some people of course will disagree with, but proposals
which are the results of much study, thought, and creativity. The
weakness of the final chapter is that you condemn everything in sight
and offer practically nothing to take its place. One thing you offer
is that intellectuals ought to participate in policymaking but ought
to retain enough independence to make their maximum contribution.
Fine, but aside from that, you offer, so far as I can see, only the
suggestion that we need better leaders, able and willing to impart
the purpose, the perspective, the sense of direction we must have,
and able and willing to innovate. Everybody believes that, including
every leader in Washington today.

The chapter places certain characters on the stage--the
Eminent Man rewarded with a high office he isn't suited for, the
intellectual on the fringe, the faceless bureaucrat (commissar) coldly
carrying out policies within a circumscribed framework. But the
political environment that has much to do with the difficulties of
policymaking is not analyzed. For example, the committee system is
thrashed from all directions but its roots are not fully uncovered.
I just don't think this is a well-rounded analysis of leadership and
policymaking. My reasons are given in my detailed comments.

Since these are my views, how can I explain that this chapter
was published as an article in the REPORTER? (I think it's a pretty
good magazine; I've even been in it myself!) I looked up the REPORTER
article out of curiosity, and would make several points: (1) The
two versions are not by any means the same. The manuscript version has
a great deal in it that was not in the REPORTER, and generally speaking
the additional material is the weakest. (2) Even the REPORTER version
was poorly edited; for example, the defects I mention in comments 57
and 58 are present in the REPORTER. (3) The REPORTER article came out
in a different time context, in March 1959 when the second Eisenhower

Final Chapter

Memorandum to Kissinger -- page 1a

term was only about half over, and your discussion of the inadequacies
of eminent Presidential appointees was especially timely and appropriate.

(4) The REPORTER article was in a different subject context; the reader would not necessarily expect a full-scale analysis of leadership and policymaking, with concrete useful proposals. In your book the reader, fresh from your chapters on strategy, would expect just that.

Final Chapter

1. So far in the chapter you have said several things already elaborated in earlier chapters. Suggest two or three sentences would be sufficient.

2. Relation to preceding sentence? "Our best people" and "our eminent men" could be taken as different ways of describing the same people, but I think you don't mean that.

3. For clarity, might be better to precede this sentence with: "In any large organization." (It is true, however, though I'm not saying it must be mentioned, that many organizations, like Westinghouse, recruit able people and move them around a great deal and train them for leadership.)

4. Comma changes meaning, and should be deleted.

5. The third use of "infuse" in this paragraph. Also, "infuse" ordinarily means "pour in"; I'm not sure that to infuse so-and-so with such-and-such is the best usage. Even if so, you use it in two slightly different senses here.

6. Paragraph gets mixed up. Version in the REPORTER was better. At the end you switch from technical vs. leadership to administrative vs. policymaking. Before I had read the REPORTER version I made a note that about one-third of the paragraph ought to be cut out. Sure enough the REPORTER version is perhaps one-third shorter.

7. Suggest "likely to be" instead of the vague "frequently in the deepest sense."

8. Why "inevitable"? Surely in some free-enterprise societies, businessmen and politicians have been two different breeds. I begin to gather you are talking only about cabinet-type positions, not elective offices.

9. "American leadership groups" doesn't give me a clear picture of what is meant.

10. Substantive knowledge perhaps belongs more aptly in this series than administrative ability.

11. Suggest "most of his energies." Also, I notice that the phrase about absorbing energies is repeated in third line of next page (though not in REPORTER version). So often I have the feeling that you are unconsciously padding, by making almost the same statements two or three or four times in the same paragraph. Since the statements usually paraphrase one another, this is a difficult thing for me to point to specifically. But I am certain that the main points could be made much more concisely by saying each thing once and going on to the next new point. Suggest you read all the sentences right along here, with this comment in mind.

Final Chapter

12. "Even in the private sector of national life" is puzzling because I thought you were in the private sector the whole time.

13. Precise antecedent of "this procedure"?

14. What effort is that? The effort expended in private business, as distinguished from government?

15. Why "conciliatory"? Is that the aptest word?

16. "national policy making" seems to imply this doesn't include any economic effort.

17. Perhaps insert "on entering government" after "executive."

18. "groups . . . groups." And "on say foreign policy in one" is awkward.

19. Smoother if you go to the singular throughout. You might say "many a high official . . . for which he is responsible. He therefore, . . . which may be his outstanding trait."

20. Meaning of "to impose a pattern of events"?

21. Suggest "Their unfamiliarity with their subject matter reinforces their already powerful tendency to think that a policy compromise among administrative proposals is the same thing as a policy."

22. Bureaucratization in *government*?

23. "Two generations"? Also, unclear why this conviction is "pragmatic." Also the "conviction" is made up of two different things, the relation of which is unclear to me.

24. Suggest comma after the first "experience."

25. I don't follow the rest of this paragraph. Pragmatism, in its generally accepted form, means the placing of a high value on that which is useful. The attributes of pragmatism which you give here seem to apply better to some other concept.

26. Certainly personal *judgment* is necessary, but "the low valuation of personal views" is certainly something I would not say is a dominant factor in the Department of State, for example. Personal *views* all too often play too great a part.

Final Chapter

27. Who is it that believes that "all 'reasonable' men must come to the same conclusion?" Also, this seems just the opposite of what is asserted in the next paragraph--that most Americans are convinced that "no one is ever entirely 'right.'"

28. Surely you must mean "insecurity," not "security."

29. "unanimity"? Would "compromise" be better?

30. Dash matter awkward.

31. In a way, no doubt true. But all too often, committees operate within a rigidly prescribed policy framework which is laid down from above and which limits choices. Policies often continue to govern long after their usefulness is over. You make this very point elsewhere; I am not trying to tell you anything you don't know-- only to point out that in these arguments you seem to be having it both ways.

32. This is identical with a sentence that appeared on page 5. Gives an impression of circling around to go over same ground more than once.

33. Aphoristic sentence<sup>5</sup>, paraphrasing earlier sentences.

34. Implies NSC one of several highest. It's <u>the</u> highest.

35. Relevance?

36. Would "when" be better than "because"?

37. There is often great need for discussion, even when advantages and disadvantages are not fairly evenly balanced. An agency which has only a tiny bit of reason on its side may yet throw tremendous (even overriding) weight in a policy discussion because of the political power of the agency's constituency.

38. Faintly implies that it is the "risks" that do the "assessing." How about "But when the alternatives are assessed, the risks . . . ."

39. These sentences seem to be truisms. What do they really add?

40. Antecedent of "it"? "Effective policy"? "Sense of proportion"? Obviously neither. Seems a meaningless sentence.

41. Seems unrealistic in many governmental contexts. All too often these things aren't disposed of on their merits at all, but are forced into a Procrustean policy bed of previously ordained policy.

Final Chapter

42. I don't deny that insecurity can lead to hard work, but this discussion doesn't fit generally into my experience in governmental agencies. Quite often it's the insecure fellow who doesn't try, and the relatively mature and balanced fellow who conscientiously works night and day because he better understands the need and because he takes personal pride in craftsmanship. I must say this "insecurity" hypothesis seems far-fetched.

43. I can't agree that officials typically believe that outside advice will be more "unbiased" than that of the people around them. It does, of course, happen sometimes. (Herbert Hoover, Jr., distrusted many of his associates and advised Herbert Prochnow to do the same.) Your criticism applies to some of the egregious appointments of the Eisenhower Administration. But a desire for unbiased advice, I feel sure, is not the usual motive for appointing ad hoc committees.

44. Committees of outside experts, I believe, are often appointed because the executive wants to use them to help him exert leadership. He gets a bunch of impeccable names to study a problem because he believes that they will recommend what he wants to do anyhow--but which he is having difficulty in doing because he lacks public and Congressional backing. You come close on the next page when you say "They can focus public discussion." But you treat very casually what I think is the principal motivation for ad hoc committees. The executive understandably is trying to mobilize support. One thing I find lacking in this chapter is a penetrating analysis of the political inhibitions on the exercise of leadership. Instead of probing into the incredible difficulties of conducting foreign policy in a pluralistic society, you pin the blame on the leaders and their lack of qualification for the job. True, they usually are ill suited to such awful responsibility, and you are right in saying so, but they would rise much better to the responsibility were it not for the pressures coming from groups in the nation more concerned with their special interests than the general good. The groups wouldn't put it that way; they are all for the national welfare; everybody is; but they rationalize that the national welfare will somehow get served if each fellow puts his self-interest first. These are some of the considerations which lead me to argue that your diagnosis, "The difficulties of American policy are primarily due to an abdication of leadership" (page 45 *et passim*), is far too simple, and that the oversimplification is a blight on your excellent book.

45. "inevitably"? Perhaps there is a good deal of justice in this, if made as a charge against the present administration. In 1961, when your book will be published, the Eisenhower administration will be dead, or at least lame. When you wrote your REPORTER article the administration still had about two years to run.

Final Chapter

46. Please forgive me--I haven't time to be as tactful as I might--but I find this whole paragraph (about the diversion of talent) exaggerated and unconvincing.

47. Since you've already read my comment No.44, you know that I do not agree with "a function beyond their scope and usually contrary to their purpose."

48. Whose assumption?

49. But isn't this contradictory? Elsewhere you deplore the substitution of fact-collecting for personal views.

50. Are we still talking here about ad hoc committees, or interagency committees?

51. This paragraph and the one on page 19 beginning "This explains" seem to be written by two different authors. Here you say there is a striving for "objectivity"; there you stress the "adversary" nature of the proceedings. Here you talk about the near frivolity of many committees; there you portray a bargaining situation among the various parties. Don't misunderstand me--I am sure the two paragraphs are compatible in your own eyes. I think one of the troubles is that you have written far too much; you've tried to hit the system from every conceivable angle in order to demolish it but good; and the result is that some of your cannonballs glance off one another. A very concise exposition, in which each thought was given one time, sharply and clearly, would certainly have produced a better appearance of logic.

52. Which committee system is this? Ad hoc, interagency, or committees in general?

53. This seems to be a definition of intellectuals. Actually aren't you defining only a certain breed of intellectual? So many, as we all know so well, now are parts of large organizations and are burdened with administrative tasks. (I am not talking about the burdens you mention on the next page--but their normal ways of life on faculties of universities, in research centers, etc.)

54. Suggest omit "However."

55. "itself" really applies to "demand," I think, but you have it applying to "expertise."

56. Again I am baffled by your intense dislike of pragmatism. Surely you yourself are an intellectual who is not pursuing knowledge merely for its own sake. I deeply believe in the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, but have trouble conceiving this in the field of foreign policy (except perhaps the history of diplomacy). Your present manuscript is hardly an abstract exercise; it is designed to be useful.

(4)

Final Chapter

57. Suggest adding "would be" after "indifference."

58. What is the meaning of "it"? I must have a blind spot--can't find the antecedent anywhere.

59. Such as the Air Force and RAND?

60. "than"?

61. "concern . . . constant concentration." Not very euphonious.

62. This sentence about the "uniformity of the administrative approach," "fellowship," and the "same range of issues" seems strangely out of tune with the emphasis elsewhere on "adversary" proceedings, disagreement, compromise, dealing with isolated questions on their merits, etc.

63. No one could quarrel with the need for purpose, but doesn't this sort of assertion (with which everyone would gladly agree) beg the question of what shall be our purpose? Purpose alone isn't a good thing; we may be consumed with purpose, but the purpose may be only to give the Communists a black eye, or to protect U.S. marginal industries, or what not. Sometimes we have too much purpose for our own good. Exhorting Americans to have more purpose, sense of direction, etc., is unexceptionable, but I'm not so sure that this alone is "the heart of the problem" as you say here.

64. Meaning of "recognize"? Do you mean recognize that conjecture is inevitable? Maybe it's "conjecture" that is the confusing word.

65. "antagonists" (plural). The REPORTER version was changed, but not changed enough.

66. What does "deepen" national policy mean?

67. This sentence makes no sense. I had to go to the REPORTER version to see what you are saying.

68. Seems to me most intellectuals nowadays stand at a highly technical vantage point.

69. Seems to me this sentence understates the influence of the permanent core of government personnel. Though it is sadly true that they are so busy with paper work and day-to-day problems that they have insufficient time for reflection, they are not totally devoid of creativity and influence. They brief the Eminent Men; they propose the alternatives; they do more thinking than the Eminent Men; they sometimes have decisive effects on the course of policy. Your chapter doesn't deal adequately with the professionals.

Final Chapter

70. The REPORTER version was better: "intellectual's alone or even primarily." As it is, reader may have to read sentence twice.

71. "Advice cannot replace knowledge." An apothegm, but it doesn't add much to your book. Knowledge gleaned from others can replace ignorance. The staff function isn't simply "advice rather than knowledge," as implied in your maxim.

72. "our leadership groups"? What are they? Sounds like government, but evidently not your meaning.

73. This sentence reminds me that your chapter scarcely deals with the big research and intelligence bureau in the State Department, the Policy Planning Staff in the State Department, and the Central Intelligence Agency. I mention them only to comment that they represent strenuous efforts to bring the pursuit of knowledge to bear upon policymaking. The breadth of your indictments would at least suggest that _their_ role might come in for some recognition.

74. Again it seems to me that you ignore the government personnel who are trained in government. Heaven knows many of them are neither brilliant nor greatly useful. But the statement that the "ablest Americans spend their formative years in an environment that positively discourages political thinking" seems to apply to the people who get Presidential appointments. But the sterility of many of those fellows only imparts greater importance to the professionals who lead them by their chubby little hands. A large gap in the chapter is the cavalier treatment that these "bureaucrats" get. Also, your statement that "a premium is placed on success in business or in the professions" ignores the flagrant fact that a premium is also placed on the amount of campaign contributions.

75. Doesn't this explanation of the difference in dynamism and purposefulness between the Americans and the Russians ignore the ideological explanation? My own guess, for which I don't claim much, is that the Soviet official's superior preparation is offset by his limitations, which are inherent not in himself but in the dogmatism of the system of which he is a part. Perhaps, if so, the main reason why the Soviet official has more dynamism and purposefulness (if he does) is that he is more stimulated ideologically. Well, as I say, I'm no expert on this matter; all I suggest is that you look again to be satisfied that you haven't unwittingly chosen _one_ difference and overemphasized it.

76. Don't they have bureaucratization in Russia too? One might think that it was an American invention.

77. "naturally"?

Final Chapter

78. This paragraph nullifies or waters down much that you said lengthily in the earlier part of the chapter. Here, it seems to me, you do more than merely qualify; you argue against yourself.

79. Here you say, "The difficulty has been that we have confused administrative neatness with policy and coordination with creativity." Who is the "we" that has done those things? The government? The whole American people? I can't make the statement fit satisfactorily into my own personal experience running around the middle wheels of governmental processes. As for "administrative neatness," what neatness? Perhaps one could as aptly say we have confused administrative complexity & overlapping & confusion with policy. As for coordination, who has confused it with creativity? Both are necessary. Granted, creativity is more important, but the coordination is utterly indispensable too; so what's the shooting about? A dead-sure way to have no policy at all would be to establish, by fiat, policies that would not be supported by the legislative branch. Statements like this may sound fine, but do they mean much in reality?

80. I get little meaning from "In the face of radical innovations the routine which usually confers momentum generates insecurity." In the face of?

81. I also get little meaning from "to be vigilant that what is defined as routine applies in fact to the most frequent occurrences." This whole paragraph--the theory that if we give a good definition of the "ordinary" we can deal with it by routine, thus freeing energies for dealing with the unexpected--doesn't seem to me applicable to what goes on in the Department of State. I con't imagine this hypothesis meaning anything to anyone there, except perhaps the strictly housekeeping people.

82. A weak repetition of "tasks." Also, what does the sentence add? If the bureaucracy is to perform only "real tasks" (whatever they are), who will perform the unreal tasks (whatever they are)? Of course I know you are plugging, and very rightly, for leaders to spend more time thinking and innovating; there's no argument about that. But if these textbook sentences outline any realistic approach to doing that, I have failed dismally to grasp it.

83. The President himself, I suppose.

84. Aren't these elementary truisms? It should go without saying that leaders should lead, that the top echelons must decide the direction and perspective but shouldn't try to control all details of execution.

85. "rest on one's oars" is a cliché.

86. Perhaps "the more necessary" would be more accurate than "the easier."

Final Chapter

87. Maybe so. But perhaps another interpretation is possible. When man no longer has to spend all his energies mastering the physical environment, he can turn more and more to the social environment. I think (I guess I should say I hope) that is indeed happening.

88. "The patterns of the past still work tolerably well." Your book seems to say otherwise, and I agree with your book.

89. The "it" is awkward; suggest repeating "liberty." The "its" likewise is not immediately sharp; I suppose you mean "inhumanity" but it might mean "our time."

90. "reverence"? Meaning unclear. Why should we have any "reverence" for the unique? Do you mean for the brand-new thing under the sun, or for the man or idea that is utterly unlike any other?

91. To reduce man to "manipulable quantities" implies chopping down the population to a controllable size.