COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, I NC.

THE HAROLD PRATT HOUSE

58 EAST 68TH STREET

NEW YORK 21, N. Y.

'APR 17 1956

April 16, 1956

Dr Henry A. Kissinger
Council on Foreign Relations
New York City

Dear Henry:

I am very glad to have a copy of
"Force and Diplomacy in the Nuclear Age,"
in this convenient form. Naturally, I
had already read it with great interest
and profit.

With best wishes,

COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, INC.

June 10, 1957

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
225 East 73 Street
New York 21, N. Y.

Dear Henry:

It has been a great help to discuss with you the
tentative plans for setting up an ad hoc Study Group for
the coming year to undertake a systematic review of United
States strategic requirements and policies. I am delighted
to know that we can count on your enthusiastic participa-
tion in it, even though we understand why the amount of time
you can devote directly to it must be a strictly limited one.

Our thought is that the Council, building on the im-
petus which your study has given to the examination of this
problem, should organize an intensive and continuing review,
by a small and highly competent group, of the political and
strategic requirements of an effective United States policy
in this field. Building on your own study and taking ac-
count of new aspects of the problem, and of new developments
and controversies, the Group might wish to continue the ex-
amination of the changing impact of new weapons, or of other
factors which may solidify or upset the effect of mutual
nuclear deterrents; the defense of U.S. allies against local
aggression, and the role of limited atomic war; the role of
military aid programs and their strategic and political im-
plications; the military and economic costs of a global
strategy; changes arising from the development of third and
fourth nuclear powers; changing factors in the defense of
armed forces, of the strategic deterrent, and of the civil-
ian populations; and so forth.

The Council has authorized me to invite you to serve as
a part-time study director for this Group, with the under-
standing, as I mentioned earlier, that the amount of time you
will be able to give to it is strictly limited. For example,
we have in mind holding more detailed discussions with you
early in September concerning the selection of the most urgent
topics for consideration and of discussion-leaders to intro-
duce these topics; discussions of the membership of the Group;

- 2 -

some assistance from you in defining lists of questions
around which the discussion at each meeting should be focused.
With your other writing commitments and your new duties at
Harvard, we realize that you do not plan at this time to
write any memoranda, but perhaps at a later stage some topics
for memoranda will come out of the work or be suggested by it.

[In return for your intellectual services, lightened as much
as possible in every technical way by the work of our staff
here, we are happy to offer a fee for the year of $1,500.] If
at a later time you find it necessary and possible to prepare
certain basic memoranda as a background for the discussions
or as a means for pointing them up, we will, on our own in-
itiative, reopen the question of providing some added compen-
sation for this additional contribution on your part.] For the
time being, as I understand it, you would be happier to leave
your commitment of time and effort at the minimum level con-
sonant with making the Study Group a useful enterprise.

We will try to time meetings of the Group to some of your
visits to New York for other purposes, so as to minimize the
time you would spend in travel, and we will, of course, take
care of the travel costs unless you find it possible to share
them among several projects in connection with any given visit.

If any of the points mentioned here are not clear, please
let me know at once. Needless to say, we are very happy to
know that you see your way clear to continuing this measure of
cooperation in a very important field of the Council's work and
we hope you will find satisfaction in it. It is going to be a
great pleasure for me personally to be working closely with you
on this very urgent field of inquiry.

With best wishes,

September 30, 1957

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
22 West 55 Street
New York 19, N. Y.

Dear Henry:

Many thanks for your good letter of September 18. I can well imagine how snowed under you are with the writing of the overall report and the planning and editing of the Subpanel reports, as well as with your new duties at Harvard. As we agreed last spring, we do not expect you to do any writing at all for the new study group on United States military policy until such time as you feel free and able to do it. As we agreed then, we hope to have the benefit of your suggestions for subjects and people for the new group, but to keep any demands on your time to a bare minimum. I am glad to know that you have given some thought to a number of topics which the study group might fruitfully take up and I shall be eager to sit down with you, as soon as you find it convenient, to talk these over and then to carry on the implementation from there, thus relieving you of any sense of burden. I have also been jotting down a few suggestions of topics and people, but I shall not want to pursue any of them concretely until we have had a brief talk about it. I would suggest that we get in touch in a week or two, to have lunch or an hour's talk and see what we think the study group should take up from that point on. We are both fully agreed that this must not be any serious claim on your time until such time as you are able to give it your full thought.

With best wishes to you and your good lady,

September 18, 1957

Dear Phil:

When we talked about my doing a study program on
military policy for the Council last year, you were kind enough
to suggest that I might write you if I had any problems in con-
nection with it. It seems now that I have. As things have
turned out at the Special Studies I have to do a major part of
the writing on both the Overall and the Subpanel reports. Given
my simultaneous duties at Harvard, I find myself in exactly the
same position I swore I would never get into again -- that is,
doing two full-time jobs simultaneously. Under these circum-
stances it would seem to me highly unwise -- in fact impossible
-- to do a serious job for the Council before the conclusion of
the Special Studies.

If at all possible, I would therefore suggest deferring a
decision on doing the study group until after January 15. I am
interested in doing it and have during the summer thought of a
number of topics we might fruitfully take up. To be fully meaning-
ful however, such a group requires careful preparation and I simply
cannot give this now. Do let me know your reaction.

Kind regards.

Mr. Philip Moseley
Director of Study Group
Council on Foreign Relations
58 East 68th Street
New York, New York

cc: Mr. Franklin

October 2, 1957

Dear Phil:

It was good to talk to you yesterday and I look forward to our lunch on the seventeenth. I do think however that I should make my position a little clearer than I did. Although you have offered to take as much of the load off me as you possibly could, it would seem to me highly irresponsible if at this stage of the game I took on any additional substantive work no matter how little time it would require. It is not that you would make more demands on me -- it is that I would make the demands on myself once I got interested.

Knowing myself I can say with assurance that I would never be able to devote just one evening a month to the work and even one evening would be a drain at the present time in view of the pressures of the Project.

I would therefore like to renew my suggestion that we defer a decision until I can see more clearly when the Special Studies will be finished. As I told you, I am very eager to do the study group -- it is simply a question of working out when to schedule it.

All good wishes.

THE HAROLD PRATT HOUSE

58 EAST 68TH STREET

NEW YORK 21, N. Y.

March 17, 1958

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

Dear Henry:

I am very, very sorry that I failed to receive your
telephone call on Friday afternoon. Through some mishap
I learned about it only at 5:30, from George, and we were
unable to reach you at your office by that time. As a
matter of fact, my urgent request to you for your comments
on the Kaufmann project were no longer really urgent, for
on Thursday Kaufmann reported that he would not be willing
to work at the Council for more than two to three months,
spending the rest of the time working in Santa Monica. We
had already made very clear to him during his visit of two
weeks ago the great importance of carrying on the project
for at least eight months at the Council, in close contact
with its facilities, and I still think that our arguments
are by far the stronger. In any case, we are dropping
the project, at least for the time being, and we have no
"second choice." Have you any suggestions in this regard?
I may be calling you early this week in order to check up
on your views about alternative study directors, especially
since I shall be leaving on Friday for two weeks in Paris
and would be eager to know your thoughts before I push
off.

The Committee on Studies, which has the final word
here, was extremely doubtful that Mr. Lovett would be
available and so it suggested the following priority: 1)
General Gruenther; 2) General Clay; 3) William C. Foster;
4) Ferdinand Eberstadt. Shall we proceed in this order?
If you have a strong preference for a different order, we
will want to know that before we proceed. No invitation
to a chairman will be extended until I have consulted with
you.

With every best wish,

THE HAROLD PRATT HOUSE

NEW YORK 21, N. Y.

58 EAST 68TH STREET

CABLE ADDRESS: FORAFFAIRS, NEW YORK

May 26, 1958

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

Dear Henry:

I was very glad to have your brief comments on Colonel Dupuy, who has, in fact, decided to present a project for consideration by the Council. The subject as he has outlined it seems very general and all-inclusive, but we will certainly want to discuss it in more detail with him in the near future. If you can snatch a few minutes to let me have your suggestions, both about Dupuy and the subject, that will be a great help. It would be especially helpful if I could have them by June 2 or 3, as I have to go on jury duty June 9. As I mentioned on the phone Friday, this is just the first step of consideration, which we give to any serious applicant.

With many thanks,

20 May 1958

# STUDY PROJECT
## THE MILITARY REQUIREMENTS
OF NATIONAL SECURITY

An Outline
by
Col. T. N. Dupuy

The purpose of this outline is to present a possible approach to a study of military requirements of modern warfare, as they relate to the broader problem of national security. There have been several recent thoughtful books and studies of the impact of modern weapons -- particularly nuclear weapons -- on foreign policy, on international relations, and on broad strategic issues. There have also been writings on some of the essentially military problems which these new weapons create. But we have not yet had a study relating military requirements to national policy, which would serve to provide for the middle of the Twentieth Century the same sort of philosophical analysis of the relationship between policy, military theory, and operational and technical realities as did Clausewitz' *On War* for the middle of the Nineteenth Century.

There is obviously at least as much need for such an analysis today, at the dawn of the Nuclear Age, as there was when Clausewitz was observing the early impact of the Industrial Revolution on warfare, or when Mahan was writing about the changes in naval warfare resulting from the transition from sail to steam. The writer pretends to be neither a Clausewitz nor a Mahan -- but the problem is there, and the challenge cannot be denied.

It is not intended, however, that this should be a sort of warmed-over Clausewitz, or Mahan brought up-to-date. In fact it is desirable that this not be so. Conclusions drawn as to the relationship of modern military theory to policy should stand on their own two feet, neither to be bolstered nor undermined by concepts developed fifty years or a century ago. To the extent that there is agreement, this will provide further evidence of the obvious fact that there are certain timeless characteristics of human conflict; inevitable differences between new conclusions and old concepts will merely reaffirm the need for constant re-evaluation of military theory and politico-military policy in the light of changes in weapons and techniques.

It must be realized that it will be difficult to develop some important portions of this outline without consideration of classified information. It may not even be possible to present some aspects, except superficially, in other than classified form. Certainly a study as serious as this should be based on hard fact rather than guesswork. If the project is approved, therefore, these matters will be explored by the writer with appropriate officials in the Department of Defense, and all questionable matters -- from a security standpoint -- will be submitted for security review.

-3-

(2) Theory of combat doctrine:

(a) D. H. Mahan

(b) Army field manuals (FM 100-5)

(c) Air Force Basic Doctrine

(d) Navy Manuals (?)

(e) Others (?)

## Part II: New Dimensions in Warfare

This section will deal with the changes in military thinking and terminology which have resulted from the introduction of nuclear weapons, and will introduce the reader to the more important of the new concepts which have been developed by military and non-military students of policy and strategy.

### 1. Nuclear Weapons and Military Theory

a. Definitions of categories of war

(1) Gradations in spectrum from peace to total war

(2) General or total war

(3) Limited wars

b. The nature of general war

c. The nature of limited war

d. Employment of military force short of war.

### 2. Current concepts and revisions of military theory

This is planned as a brief review of concepts expressed in recent publications or public statements of such people as Kissinger, Osgood, Lidell Hart, M. D. Taylor, Dale O. Smith, PXston, Fuller, Slessor, Kingston-McLoughrie, Huntington, Millis, Finletter, Brodie, Halle, etc. This is not intended as an exhaustive survey or series of condensations, but rather as a generalized synthesis of major policy-strategic concepts which are currently receiving attention.

## Part III: Operational Requirements and Limitations

This section will acquaint the reader with the limitations which are imposed upon policy and strategy by the nature of new weapons and their effects. It will provide the firm foundation of practicality upon which the remainder of the study must rest. In particular, careful consideration will be given to the problem of vulnerability, which has not received adequate attention in recently published studies of military strategy in the nuclear age.

### 1. The Tactical Employment of Nuclear Weapons

a. More semantics; misuse of the terms "strategic" and "tactical."

b. The effects of weapons:

-4-

(1) "Conventional" weapons

(2) Nuclear weapons

(3) Chemical and biological methods of warfare (poison gas and germ warfare)

### c. Current and future developments

(1) Long range missiles

(2) The challenge of outer space

(3) Unknown weapons systems of the future

### d. Impact of weapons on tactics

(1) Firepower

(2) Mobility

(a) Airlift problems

(b) Sealift for men and materials

(3) Communications

(4) Intelligence

(a) Target acquisition

(b) Intentions or capabilities?

(5) Training problems

## 2. Vulnerability and Capability on the Modern Battlefield.

a. Vulnerability of men and machines to the new weapons

b. Dispersion for survival, vs. concentration for effectiveness

c. The logistical problem

d. Levels of employment of weapons, with consequent limitations on operational capabilities and effectiveness

e. Analysis of prospects of nuclear combat

(1) Land operations

(2) Operations in the air

(3) Operations in, on and over the sea

# Part IV: Military Capabilities and National Policy

This section will deal with the relationship of military strength to national policy, in war and in peace. It should provide a theoretical framework for the consideration of the major problems of national security in the nuclear age.

## 1. Deterrence and War.

a. The theory of deterrence

b. A case study of deterrence: Switzerland

c. Theoretical comparison of military strength for deterrence, and military strength for effective combat

d. Priorities of preparedness

## 2. The Composition and Employment of Modern Military Strength

-5-

a. The purpose of armed forces

b. Selective employment of military strength

(1) Force appropriate to objective sought.

(2) Consideration of allied and neutral reaction.

(3) What evaluation of moral considerations?

c. Availability of types of forces which may be required.

3. How Much is Enough?

a. Forces required to deter general war

b. Forces required to fight general war

c. Forces required to deter limited war

d. Forces required to fight limited war

4. Military Organization and Command Structure

a. Brief history of defense organization in the United States, in relationship to strategic problems of the nation.

b. The requirements of civilian control; theory and practice.

c. Strategy and organization.

d. Political aspects of the problem.

e. The need for organizational flexibility.

5. Weapons and the Armed Forces

a. Relationship to the command and organization problem.

b. The struggle for survival and preeminence among the services.

c. The effect of weapons on traditional service functions.

d. The 1947 reorganization in terms of weapons systems.

Part V: Integration of Military and Non-Military Requirements

This section will consider the impact of military policy and strategy on the whole fabric of national society. It will select for discussion those areas where there is the most significant interaction of military and non-military considerations.

1. Military Manpower

a. The manpower pool and its allocation

(1) Civilian tasks

(2) Active military forces

(3) Reserve military forces

b. The selection and preparation of military leaders

(1) Sources

(2) Selection

(3) Training and preparation

(4) Progressive development

c. Professional standards in the armed forces

d. Attractiveness of military service

e. Conscription and voluntary recruitment

2. Reserve Forces and Policies

a. The relationship between active forces and reserve forces

(1) in general war

(2) in limited war

b. Procurement of officers and enlisted personnel in the reserve forces

c. A determination of the relationship between military training and military education for reserve personnel

d. The political role of the National Guard

3. Civil Defense

a. The requirement for organization

b. The service roles in civil defense

c. The use of active and reserve military forces.

4. National Resources and Warfare

a. The budget

b. Procurement and production of weapons and equipment

c. Stock piling of raw materials

d. Requirements of the civilian economy

5. Others (?)

Part VI: International Problems

This section will deal with the role of military theory, policy and strategy in international affairs. Previously, particularly in Part IV, we shall have dealt with military strength as an instrument of national foreign policy. This section, then, is intended to focus attention on specific international problems relating to the employment, control and limitations of military force.

1. Disarmament

a. The theoretical objectives of disarmament

b. United States disarmament policy

c. Methods and dangers

2. Alliances in Peace, War and Cold War

a. The military objectives of alliances

b. Non-military objectives of alliances

c. The role of the United Nations

(1) The Military Staff Committee

(2) The UN in Korea

(3) The UN in the Suez crisis

d. Regional alliances

(1) NATO

(2) Baghdad Pact

(3) SEATO

(4) The Organization of American States

Part VII: Conclusions

This section, as its title indicates, will offer general conclusions which emerge from what has gone before. For that reason the outline of the section must be considered as very tentative, and it will require further elaboration after the preliminary portions of the study have been more completely developed.

1. War Game Examples of Limited Wars.

2. Is Time On Our Side?

3. Results of the Search for Solutions.

4. Civilization and the Control and Limitation of Armed Conflict.

CABLE ADDRESS: FOR AFFAIRS, NEW YORK

June 5, 1958

Dear Henry:

Many thanks for your note of June 2, concerning
Colonel Dupuy's project. Yes, I am very glad to learn that
he has worked out the final arrangement with your Center, as I
felt from the beginning that an arrangement of this kind would
give him a more orderly and assured transition to a new, aca-
demic, career. We will be much interested to learn of his
development at Harvard and his contributions to the program.
I am sure you will keep in mind the possibility of his serving
at some stage as a discussion leader in the Discussion Group.

With best wishes,

THE HAROLD PRATT HOUSE

58 EAST 68TH STREET

NEW YORK 21, N. Y.

June 24, 1958

Dear Henry:

I am off now to Vermont for some rest and some editing. Before leaving, I wanted to report that while I have had two letters from Bill Foster, expressing great enthusiasm for chairing the Discussion Group, he has not been able to give a definite acceptance. I suppose we should keep it open a little longer, but I think that, if we have not had a reply from him by July 15, when I return to the office, we ought to press him then for a definite answer, so as to move on with the planning of the topics.

When you have time, I am sure you will be giving definite thought to the topics, their sequence, and possible discussion leaders. When I was in Chicago in early May I had an interesting talk with Osgood. While he is not as close to the policy questions as one would wish, he is a bright person and perhaps it would be useful to bring him in for one topic, depending on your own plans. He is now working on a study of NATO, as a case study of limited war planning.

I plan to be at: Cuttingsville, Vermont, June 21 to July 14; at the Council July 14-22; again in Cuttingsville from July 24 to August 10. If I should be coming to Cambridge, I will let you know. I assume that you are going to stay out of New York as much as possible during the summer!

With best wishes to you both,

August 6, 1958

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
Littauer Center
Harvard University
Cambridge 38, Massachusetts

Dear Henry:

Many thanks for your good letter of August 1. It is
very helpful to have your thoughts and comments on the sug-
gested membership of the Study Group and I shall take them
up with the staff meeting next Tuesday and then send you the
final list.

When I return to New York on August 11, I will try to
get hold of Jim Perkins and arrange for the chairmanship. I
think this is a very good decision.

Since I cannot stay in New York beyond August 16, and
have a lot of work to finish up here in Cuttingsville (I am
dictating this from Vermont, to be typed in New York, I would
suggest that we have a good talk on the telephone while I am
in New York, perhaps on August 14 or 15. Or I can be reached
in Vermont from August 17, at most times (Cuttingsville 2,
ring 1-2).

With best wishes,

September 15, 1958

Mr. Philip Mosely
Council on Foreign Relations
58 East 68th Street
New York, New York

Dear Phil:

I spent an afternoon with Jim Perkins the other day. He and I worked out a program for the first four weekings about which I am quite enthusiastic. Though we have some very definite ideas about the remainder of the sessions, it seemed to us unwise to come with a detailed program for the whole year to the first meeting, since this might look to this group as if we were trying to railroad them. After I have made some slight revisions in the draft for the meetings, I will send it to you toward the end of this week.

In order to keep you fully informed of everything we are planning, I shall as a matter of course send you copies of our correspondence in relation to the study group and consult with you on all major decisions.

In your absence I had a talk with George last week about my role with relation to the study group. It did not indicate any lessening of enthusiasm or any reluctance to assume the intellectual leadership. I simply do not want to commit myself to any writing until I am fully ready.

Warm regards.

P.S. Enclosed are my expenses for the trip to New York last week.

THE HAROLD PRATT HOUSE

NEW YORK 21, N. Y.

September 26, 1958

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
Harvard University
Littauer Center
Cambridge 38, Massachusetts

Dear Dr. Kissinger:

I am enclosing a check in the amount of
$38.60, covering your expenses incurred in
attending the last meeting of the Discussion
Group on Strategy and Policy.

November 12, 1958

Dear Phil:

I am writing to you today about a matter which has given me a great deal of concern for a long time, the compensation for my work with your discussion group. It seems to me that the sum agreed upon is much too high and out of proportion to anything that you are receiving in return. When George first suggested this arrangement to me I accepted because it seemed to me that while you were probably paying me too much, this might in a sense be considered as added compensation for the unexpected success of the book. The more I reflected about this however the clearer it becomes to me that this is an incorrect way of looking at the problem. To my almost certain knowledge you have never paid anyone an honorarium even remotely approaching the sum suggested for me. And even though my reputation may be worth some additional compensation, the present figure seems out of line.

This is why I suggested to George Franklin a few months ago that it be reduced. Though he refused to accept, I would now like to repeat my suggestion and propose a reduction of $2,000. An honorarium of $3,000 would seem to me more in line and it would certainly make it easier for me to live with myself. I would be very grateful to you if you would arrange this with Bill Henderson.

cc: H.F. Armstrong

November 18, 1958

Dear Phil:

I am writing to you today about a matter which has given me a great deal of concern for a long time: the compensation for my work with your discussion group. To my almost certain knowledge you have never paid anyone an honorarium even remotely approaching the sum agreed to for me. It seems to me that this sum is much too high and out of proportion to anything that you are receiving in return. When George first suggested this arrangement to me I accepted because it seemed to me that while you were probably paying me too much, this might in a sense be considered as added compensation for the unexpected success of the book. However the more I have reflected the clearer it becomes that this is an incorrect way of looking at the problem. For one thing, you have since made an arrangement which permits me to share in the royalties to some extent. More importantly, the two things do not seem to me sufficiently related. Thus even though my reputation may be worth some special compensation, the present figure seems out of line.

This is why I suggested to George Franklin a few months ago that it be reduced. Though he refused to accept, I would now like to repeat my suggestion and propose a reduction of $2,000. An honorarium of $3,000 would seem to me more appropriate and it would certainly make it easier for me to live with myself. I would be very grateful to you if you would arrange this with Bill Henderson.

THE HAROLD PRATT HOUSE

NEW YORK 21, N. Y.

February 6, 1959

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

Dear Henry:

Many thanks for your good note, as it told me you were safely back from abroad. I shall be very much interested in your impressions. Is there a topic in them which should be brought before a Council round-table?

Be sure to let me know the next time you are going to be in New York. Unless you set a half hour or an hour ahead of time, you will never get to it! Nor will I!

With all best wishes,

February 20, 1959

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

Dear Henry:

I hope you will let me know when you are next coming to New York, for I am eager to bring our talks up-to-date. I had a good talk on the phone today with Jim Perkins and plan to see him next Tuesday, to discuss the arrangements for reviving the work of the Discussion Group under a slightly different name. You will remember that at its November meeting the group expressed a strong desire to consider ways and means by which the Western deterrent could be "stretched out" in this period of uncertainty and rapid change, and suggested that Wohlstetter be requested to open the discussion. Just in the past few days I have seen Albert on his way through the city, and he says he will be glad to do this. Incidentally, he expressed great pleasure in his talks with you in Cambridge just before.

In any case, Jim or I will telephone you after we talk it over on Tuesday, for we shall want to have your thoughts on this next stage of our work. I am also anxious to hear about your observations in Europe.

With all best wishes to you both and to the new member of the family,

THE HAROLD PRATT HOUSE

NEW YORK 21, N. Y.

58 EAST 68TH STREET

March 3, 1959

Dear Henry:

Many thanks for our good talk last Friday. I am counting on your letting me know the next time you are coming to New York.

On Monday I consulted Jim Perkins about changing the date of the first meeting of the new Discussion Group on Political and Strategic Problems of Deterrence from Wednesday, April 1, to Monday, April 6. Unfortunately, Jim is tied up on April 6 and on several days that week, and I expect to leave on April 10 for Moscow. With much reluctance, we felt we should go ahead with the date of Wednesday, April 1, in the hope that Mrs. Kissinger's delivery will be safely completed by that time. Naturally, her needs for your presence and comfort must come first. It would be a pity to put off the first meeting of the group until after April 26, so I am sure that you will understand why we felt we had to go ahead with the date of April 1.

With all best wishes to you both,

Very sincerely,

Philip E. Mosely
Director of Studies

March 24, 1959

Dear Henry:

On Wednesday, April 1, Jim Perkins and I hope that you will be able to meet with us and Albert Wohlstetter at 4:45 P.M., in my office, to discuss the arrangements for the meeting and perhaps one or two later topics. I hope very much you can do it, but we all realize that this is contingent upon certain very important events in the Kissinger home!

I have very much missed the opportunity for a good talk with you ever since December, and I hope you will be sure to let me know when you are coming to New York. I now expect to be away between April 10 and May 5, so I would be especially happy to see you by April 10.

With best wishes to you both,

April 6, 1959

Dear Henry:

It was a great pleasure to see you on Wednesday, just like old times. I am delighted that you are willing to undertake a topic for the Discussion Group on the Political and Strategic Problems of Deterrence, for Tuesday, May 19th. I hope that Jim's announcement of the topic was not too abrupt, from your point of view. What I had told him, before the meeting, was that you were considering this topic, as the outgrowth of an article which you were planning to write a few weeks from now, and I thought you could be persuaded to present it to the group. Unfortunately, the plane schedule from Albany did not give time for that added consultation among the three of us, prior to the meeting. In any case, I hope you will feel that you can fit this into your schedule. It will be a great contribution to the work of the Discussion Group. Please let us have the exact subject and also a list of questions, preferably on one page, for distribution before the meeting. Is there any reading matter you would have distributed in advance?

Although I shall be away from the office from April 10 to May 6, if the plans for the Moscow trip go through, Mel Conant will be standing by to handle all arrangements or emergencies during that time, and I will pick up again from May 6 or possibly May 4.

With best wishes and many thanks,

April 6, 1959

Dear Henry:

For convenience in filing, I am writing separately about the plans for the book. Needless to say, I am very excited at the prospect of the Council's helping to bring about a second Kissinger book. Your plan for bringing the different essays and chapters together in a systematic way appeals to me very much. Naturally, we will be glad to have an outline of the contents whenever that is convenient, so as to put the project through the usual procedure here.

With respect to a possible range of financial arrangements, I shall be exploring this with George and Frank in the next few days and will try to get some word off to you before I leave on April 10. I am sure we can work out a special arrangement, distinct from the usual procedure, for sharing the royalties. From a procedural point of view, the main question is whether you would prefer to have a fixed fee, say, $5000 as a stipend, as a fee to be paid in certain installments, with some corresponding reduction in the sharing of the royalties, or whether you would prefer to put it on a straight royalty basis, with naturally a larger share of royalties going to you. I shall try to work out a concrete proposal along this line, and will send it to you, but perhaps you could be thinking briefly about the two main variants. The total advantage to you would be the same, I would assume, but you might have tax reasons for preferring a larger payment in 1959, or perhaps larger royalty payments in 1960.

With every best wish,

May 11, 1959

Dear Henry:

Many thanks for your good note of April 13, which I have just found on my return from Moscow, and especially for our very encouraging talk of last Friday. I am delighted that you are now planning firmly to go ahead with a new book on the basic problems of strategy, and it is deeply gratifying to know that you plan to do it with the Council. We shall be eager to work out the arrangements and I hope to see you around 4:30 or 4:45 P.M. on May 19th. Or, if you prefer not to discuss other matters just before your own presentation to the Discussion Group, we can talk about it at the end of the evening session.

On the royalty side, I have sketched out some ideas very roughly, on the enclosed page, but have not had time to discuss them with George or with our Business Office. I shall try to do that on May 18, as soon as I return from a week at Berkeley. The enclosed is truly a rough idea, and I shall be glad to have your own suggestions.

With best wishes,

Enclosure

THE HAROLD PRATT HOUSE

58 EAST 68TH STREET

NEW YORK 21, N. Y.

May 20, 1959

Dear Henry:

First of all, I want to thank you most warmly for your clear and challenging presentation of last evening. You certainly got the group off to a good start and had their interest throughout. I only wish we could have had several full evenings to go on with the central topics which you defined so well.

In the second place, I want to congratulate both you and Harvard on the new appointment! It was inevitable, but it is nice to hear about it.

With all best wishes to you and your growing family,

June 3, 1959

Dear Henry:

Since our good talk on May 19, I have had an
opportunity to review with Dr. Wriston and others the
increasingly firm prospects that you will be able to com-
plete a new study in the field of strategy and policy,
under Council auspices. Needless to say, we are deeply
gratified at this prospect and we hope, primarily for the
sake of the national interest, that you will be able to
carry through your plan during the summer. Please let us
know if there are any steps we can take to help you carry
it through.

As I mentioned, we shall, at some early stage,
need an outline or a two-page essay, setting forth the
broad themes of the study, in order to meet the require-
ments of the Committee on Studies in our procedure, but I
am sure the Committee on Selection will waive its usual
requirement of an interview, even though this will deprive
its members of that great pleasure and interest,

I appreciated very much your thoughtful comments
on the question of the prospective returns to you, as the
author, in the absence of a Council stipend. My consul-
tations here were delayed somewhat by traveling and other
pressing matters, but now I am able to present for your
consideration a firm proposal on this aspect of the
arrangement. We would like to adopt outright the sug-
gested scale of royalties, which you mentioned on May 19,
namely, 12½% on the first 5000 copies, 15% on the next
5000 copies, and 17½% on the next 10,000 or more copies.
For a book of about 300 pages or just under, including
front matter and index, we have estimated a tentative price
of $4 per copy. The royalties would then work out to 50¢
per copy on the first 5000 copies sold, 60¢ per copy on
the next 5000 copies sold, and 70¢ per copy on the next
10,000 or more copies sold. The same royalty would apply
on sales in England, and we would assume the normal

-2-

arrangement of a 50/50 sharing between the Council and
the author on any serial rights, paperback reprinting,
foreign translation and book club sales.

Since we feel so strongly about you as a Council
author, and since we would not be satisfied to remain
within a normal publisher's arrangement for royalties, I
should like also to propose an outright author's fee of
$2500, in addition to all royalties, to be paid to you
upon the delivery of the manuscript to the publisher.

I am sure you are having a most interesting time
in Europe, and I hope you will get in touch with me soon
after you return and have caught your breath and said hello
to your charming wife and the baby. I shall be back and
forth between Vermont (Cuttingsville) and New York until
about mid-July, and we could talk either in Cambridge or
in New York, or by phone. Naturally, we shall be eager
to hear that you are ready to go forward with this impor-
tant contribution to the study of national strategy, and
we hope that you will see the way clear to carry it through
under the Council's auspices. Among the matters we can
discuss later is the question of whether you would prefer
to have a single intensive period of review by the Study
Group, perhaps in a week-end meeting, or whether you would
prefer to have several single-evening meetings fairly close
together. After that will come the question of a Chair-
man and the composition of the Study Group, but there is
no hurry about that.

With all best wishes,

THE HAROLD PRATT HOUSE

NEW YORK 21, N. Y.

58 EAST 68TH STREET

July 14, 1959

Dear Henry:

Many thanks for your thoughtful note.
We are not impatient, but will be happy to
discuss with you at any time the further steps
toward carrying out the study or back up your
approaches to the people at Harvard in any
way you consider appropriate. I am happy to
leave the next step in your hands and to await
further word from you.

The summary which you prepared for the
Atlantic Congress is masterly in its clarity
and foresight.

Have a good rest and enjoy your family
during the summer.

With best wishes,