April 1, 1965

Professor Alfred Grosser
Department of History
Stanford University
Palo Alto
California

Dear Professor Grosser:

I would like to tell you how very much I enjoyed your visit at Harvard. You performed an amazing "tour de force" by saying something new on every occasion and remaining buoyant and stimulating throughout.

I am delighted that you have agreed to do a paper for the symposium on Germany. As I told you, we are badly in need of a paper on German foreign policy particularly toward the West in terms of our three major themes: (1) continuity and change in German foreign policy; (2) the problem of identity of post-war Germany and (3) what aspects of German policy reflect general European trends and which are peculiar to Germany. I think it is less important to have an exhaustive treatment than some general conceptual reflections which are illustrated by specific illustrations. Your paper could be anywhere between 30-50 double-spaced typewritten pages and we would pay you $1000. We would need to have the paper by June 15th.

We are planning to get the authors together once more at the latter half of July at Harvard. We are tentatively thinking of having a meeting for a day or two the week of July 25th though the week of July 18th may also prove possible. How does this look for you? Needless to say, we would pay all of your expenses.

Could you let me know as soon as possible whether I understood you correctly that you will do the paper?

I am enclosing a summary of the notes that were taken at the meeting for whatever use they may be to you.

With warm personal regards.

Henry V. Kieferger

Sincerely yours,

With warm personal regards.

each of your correctly that you will do the better?

Could you let me know as soon as possible whether I under-

don't? Needless to say, we would be all of your expenses.

week of July 18th and also some possible ideas. How does this look for having a meeting for a day or two the week of July 22nd through the latter part of July at Harvard? We are tentatively thinking of

have the better at June 12th.

Tobacco written here and we would buy you $1000. We would need to buy them. Your better could be anywhere between 30-20 people-able to conceptualize reflections which are illustrated by a specific figure. It is important to have an exhaustive treatment then some General European trends and which are beneficial to Germany. I think it is Germany and (3) what aspects of German policy reflect General German foreign policy? (2) the problem of identity of best-interest of our three major themes: (1) continuity and change in a better on German foreign policy particularly toward the West in Europe on Germany. As I told you, we are really in need of I am delighted that you have agreed to do a better for the and stimulating throughput.

by saying something new on every occasion and remaining productive at Harvard. You performed an amazing "four de force". I would like to tell you how very much I enjoyed your

Dear Professor Grosser:

California
Belo Vite
Stanford University
Department of History
Professor Alfred Grosser

April 1, 1969

May 28, 1965

Mr. Alfred Grosser
Department of History
Stanford University
Stanford, California

Dear Alfred:

Thank you for your letter of May 16th. I appreciated
your nice comments about my Reporter article, coming as they
did from one of the few people who really knows something about
Germany.

The outline of your paper seems splendid. May I suggest
that you deal also with the interplay of domestic and foreign
policy and the reciprocal impact of domestic policy on the
debate on European structure. This seems to me implied in your
point #4 but I simply wanted to make sure.

Also, it might be useful at the beginning to have a few
pages of just what foreign policy problems the Federal Republic
faced when it emerged into statehood.

I look forward to receiving your paper in the second half
of June.

I am not sure that I will be attending the Council on
Foreign Relations meeting.

Warm regards.

STANFORD UNIVERSITY
STANFORD, CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY

454 Tennessee Lane, Palo Alto

June 7, 1965

JUN 9 REC'D

Dear Henry :

Here we are. You said: no more than 50 pages. My 49 1/2 are both lengthy and too short to give all necessary nuances.

The obvious shortcomings: I did not coordinate enough my chapter with the other ones. But I felt unable to do so without hampering the structure of my study. The lack of footnotes: my study is rather an essay. But, if you want it, I could add a kind of short but systematic bibliography.

Translation: of course I shall have to check it. Please make sure that the translation into german will take the French text as the original. As much as possible I have given the German wording of the official German documents.

We are in Stanford until August 13. Then Lake Hotel Cottages, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming and finally, during the last days of August, with the Schmidt-Paulis in Boston.

At this moment, one of your new fellows will probably have arrived at the Center: my friend Paul VERBEEK presently first secretary at the German embassy in Paris. I think you will be very glad to have this deeply sincere, honest, devoted diplomat.

Two additional questions: 1) Is it in - convenient if some of the ideas expressed in my chapter appear in a short article in the autumn-issue of _Foreign Affairs_ ? If you object, please let me know as quickly as possible.

2) Could you manage -for tax reasons- that, even if the fee is paid while I am in the States, my permanent address is mentioned in your accounts ? ( 7 bis, square du Champ de Mars, Paris 15)

En espérant que le chapitre correspond un peu à ce que vous espériez

with warm regards

July 28, 1965

Professor Alfred Grosser
Department of History
Stanford University
Palo Alto, California

My dear Alfred:

I have now read your paper with the greatest interest and
have made extensive marginal notes as they occurred to me. Some
of my questions you have answered later but I thought it might
be useful to let you have the impressions which formed as I read
along.

My major editorial comment is that you have written your
contribution primarily as an essay and less as a part of a book.
This leads you to refer to many incidents as if they were perfectly
familiar to the reader while, in fact, by the time the book is
published such events as the Egyptian crisis may either have slipped
from memory or may have been superseded by another Egyptian crisis.

Secondly, I do not think you have ever quite decided to what
audience your contribution is addressed. Sometimes it assumes a
great deal of knowledge of the German situation and on other occasions
it seems to be very elementary. I think in re-casting it you should
keep in mind that it is basically addressed to a highly intelligent
lay audience.

Substantively, I think your contribution suffers now from the
lack of organizing themes. This turns it into a collection of
miscellaneous material whose significance will not be clear to
those who are German experts and which may appear too superficial
to a German expert.

It seems to me that a chapter on German foreign policy would
lend itself particularly well to two of our major running themes:
(1) the problem of change and continuity in German policy and (2)
the problem of identity in German policy.

.....

....

the problem of identity in Germanistik.

(1) the problem of change and continuity in Germanistik and (2) the problem of continuity well to two of our major running themes:

to a German expert.

misleading material whose significance will not be clear to

Jack of organizing themes. This turns it into a collection of

superficially, I think your contribution outside now from the

lay audience.

keep in mind that it is precisely addressed to a highly intelligent
it seems to be very elementary. I think in re-casting it you should
great deal of knowledge of the German literature and on other occasions
audience your contribution is acquired. Sometimes it assumes a
Secondly, I do not think you have ever quite decided to what

from memory or wish have been addressed by another Egyptian writer.
depicted and even as the Egyptian writer may either have nibbled
to the reader while, in fact, by the time the book is
This leads you to refer to many incidents as if they were perfectly
contribution primarily as an easy and less as a part of a poor.
My major editorial comment is that you have written your
Secondly, I do not think you have ever quite decided to what

along.
be useful to let you have the impressions which formed as I read
of my description you have answered later but I thought it might
have made extensive marginal notes as they occurred to me. Some
I have now read your paper with the greatest interest and

My dear Walter:

Belo Vite, California
Stanford University
Department of History
Professor Walter Grosser

July 38, 1982

Professor Alfred Grosser

- 2 -

July 28, 1965

It seems to me that of all the topics to be treated in the proposed book, none requires so urgently an answer to the question of what is new and what is traditional as the subject of foreign policy. Also, I think, it is essential that the paper treat those aspects of German foreign policy which are characteristic of Western Europe as a whole and those which are peculiar to the Federal Republic. This would give you a framework for a discussion of the conflicting pressures between German unity and Atlantic and European integration. Also, it would seem to me essential to treat the conflict between the need for security which is supported by the United States and the emotional ties to France, which represent an emotional need. You do treat this at the end but by then I am afraid that the major theme has been lost.

Finally, it seems to me that on many of the policy issues to which you refer, such as Berlin or the Berlin pass agreement, it would be extremely helpful if you explained their nature and their significance. I have tried to indicate it as much as possible in my comments in the margins.

I know that I am asking for a major revision. I am making these suggestions in such a frank manner because I think that in the long run you and I will be happier if a book, which I hope will last for many years, will represent the very best of what you are capable. If it will help you, I certainly would not object if you used some of the material of the *Foreign Affairs* article.

Could I have your revisions by the first week of September? Can you let me know as soon as possible?

With warm regards and every good wish.

Henry V. Kieflinger

Gincerely yours,

You let me know as soon as possible?

If it will help you, I certainly would not object if you need some of
many years, will represent the very best of what you are capable.

run you and I will be happy if a book, which I hope will last for
subsequent in print and a true manner because I think that in the long
I know that I am eating for a major revolution. I am making these
margins.

I have tried to indicate it as much as possible in my comments in the
be extremely helpful if you explained their nature and their significance.
which you refer, such as Berlin or the Berlin peace agreement, it would
hastily, it seems to me that on many of the policy issues to

be passed out.

treat this as the end and put it then I am afraid that the major theme
emotional rise to France, which represent an emotional need. You do
the need for security which is supported by the United States and the
Vivo, it would seem to me essential to treat the conflict between
battles between German nutty and Atlantic and European integration.
There would give you a framework for a discussion of the conflicting
Europe as a whole and those which are similar to the Federal Republic.
ases of German foreign policy which are characteristic of Western
policy. Vivo, I think, it is essential that the better treat those
of what is new and what is traditional as the subject of foreign
proposed book, none requires so absolutely an answer to the question
It seems to me that of all the topics to be treated in the

Professor Walter Grosser

July 28, 1962

STANFORD UNIVERSITY

STANFORD, CALIFORNIA 94305

DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY

July 31, 1965

Dear Henry :

Thank you for your letter of July 28, even if it was a surprising and discouraging one. Surprising because your two precedent ones did not announce any major criticism. Discouraging because I do not understand the criticism you made.

But let me first state this: even if I thought your proposals for a major change intellectual acceptable, the change could not be made. I leave Palo Alto on August 12; the trunks with my documentation have already left and during the last days I have a lot of examinations and term-papers to read. Then we spend three weeks in Wyoming, Boston and New York without any possibility to do any work. And after my return on September 5, I have too many other things to do. Of course this is an unfortunate situation, but please do not forget you have my chapter since more than two and half months...

Thus the two only solutions are either to publish the chapter in the slightly revised form I shall send you in two or three days (including the corrections of translation mistakes), or to drop it entirely. Of course I would be very sorry about it, especially as I have worked hard, but I would accept the decision you are entitled to take. After all, before the meeting in March, this chapter was not planned at all.

Now to your letter and to your comments. An essay and not a part of a book: I do not quite see the difference. If you mean that I should have taken into account the other contributions, you are conflicting with yourself, because later you repeat time and again I should have given detailed information on the Oder-Neisse, on the DDR, on the European policy, as if Carl Friedrich's chapter and the chapter on the Eastern policy did not exist.

But you connect the essay/chapter distinction to the "incidents" I referred to. Be sure I have carefully selected the significant facts and dropped the anecdotal ones. Perhaps you are right and there will be another Egypt crisis before the book is out. But 1) that is the kind of risk one has to take writing about contemporary situations, 2) the second crisis would not destroy the signification of the first one in the development and the problematic of German foreign policy.

The audience: I confess (and I made this point already at our meeting in March) that this problem is a very difficult one. But I was very aware of it, especially as I knew that the book was to be published in German too. I have just sent a letter

2

to Little, Brown and Co. telling them how reluctant I was about an
american translation of my "Politique extérieure de la V. République"
because it had been written for a typical French audience. But here
I cannot see your point. You do not give any example of what "seems
to be very elementary" and, with some exceptions I shall take into
account, I do not see where the "great deal of knowledge of the
German situation" is you say I assume. Either this knowledge has
been given by the precedent chapters of the book or I assumed that
the "highly intelligent lay audience" has some knowledge because it
has some political culture. I could definitely not repeat everything
I said in my elementary "The Federal Republic of Germany". On the
other hand, Stanley does not state either, in his chapter for "In
search of France", that Pétain was in power from 1940 to 1944 or
that Alsace-Lorraine has been German from 1871 to 1918.

The lack of organizing themes: I think I have taken into
account all your suggestions (as formulated either in March or in
your subsequent letters). I have especially taken into account both
the themes you mention, the problem of change and continuity and the
problem of identity. But for me the overall problem of German foreign
policy is the conflict security/ risk for unification. When I fini-
shed my chapter, I feared this main theme was by far too much a run-
ning theme... The different themes you mention then 1) are treated
or at least alluded to in the chapter, 2) would, if dealt with in a de-
tailed way, destroy the thematic unity you are precisely asking for.

Finally may I suggest you take another look at the whole
paper ? I got the impression that you have read it in a rather moody
state of mind. Otherwise how could I interpret marginal remarks like
those of p.19r 33 (I could select many other examples):

P.1 I begin stating what the two specific goals are -and you write
immediately "say why they want these two goals", what will obvious-
ly be done in the next pages.

P.33, I begin a paragraph with:" On this point, the Soviet Union gave the Federal Republic cause for satisfaction, but the latter was at a loss to draw any propaganda advantage from it". Marginal comment: "Whan? Where? Why ?" The two first questions are answered in the next sentence and the third one a few sentences later. Really...

Or to give one more example, p.5. Text: "The division of Germany
today is more similar to that of Korea or Viet-Nam than to the German
dispersion before Bismarck". Your marginal remark: "Explain this ide-
ological as opposed to pure national point". My following sentence :
"The ideological fact prevails over the national fact and the German
problem is one particular instance of a confrontation extending far
beyond the limits of Germany".....

I am very sorry about all this. I hope you will under-
stand my point of view.

STANFORD UNIVERSITY

STANFORD, CALIFORNIA 94305

DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY

August 3, 1965

Dear Henry :

Enclosed the amended text. My changes should
be checked for linguistic corrections by the translator (who did a
fine job, even if I found a few mistakes). The quotations I made
in German should also be translated.

A few remarks on the commentaries I could not
take into account without further explanations from you :

p.8
Israel/Egypt crisis: I think my wording is clear to state my point
even for the reader who has forgotten everything

The French reproach is made directly by de Gaulle to Erhard and
indirectly by "Le Monde" especially about Viet Nam

p.13 "corruption": there has been corruption in 1949. It seems unnecessary to tell the whole story here

p.15
Between now and the publication, there will have been twenty more
Western statements promising the Germans to maintain unification as
a major western aim. (At every NATO session...)

p.16 If for the reader "the burden of the past" does not imply what you want me to add (Nazy legacy and the loss of two wars), is he still an intelligent reader ?

p.37 The benches at the Geneva conference : what has to be explained ?

p.44 Grass and the share of GNP going to Governement : I have never said that the Federal Republic (nor the US) live up to their economic ideology. I am speaking about beliefs.

p.45 NATO integration: I really think that even a new German aggressive
ness would be contained by the NATO system ("logistique", armement)

p.53
Should I be silent about the franco-german tension because it
might be over in 1966 ? I disagree on the methodology. Furthermore
I have already analyzed the divergent outlooks while the honeymoon
was florishing

p.54 (bottom) Of course China and Berlin are not of the same order of magnitude. But a smiling observation does not need the precision of a shrewd analysis.

FONDATION NATIONALE
DES
SCIENCES POLITIQUES

UNIVERSITÉ DE PARIS

CYCLE SUPÉRIEUR D'ÉTUDES POLITIQUES

PARIS. LE September 25,1965

27, RUE SAINT-GUILLAUME (7*)

Dear Henry,

Sorry for being late. Two explanations for the delay:
I wanted to see whether the German elections would compell me to change any-
thing. (I do not think so. But feel free to do it if any point seems outdated
to you). More actual explanation: I felt and I still feel embarrassed by the
kind of introduction you asked for.

After long hesitations, I finally made only a few ad-
ditions (and on one specific point, you have to decide how long it should be),
in order not to distroy the synthetic presentation I had tried to give p.2 to
4. I hope you will not be too much dissatisfied.

<u>Mendershausen's remarks</u> lead me to following small

changes:

p. 9 (1.2 from bottom) suppress"citizens and" (leave "subjects")

p. 34 1. 4 from bottom "...from West to East. Even <u>BEFORE</u> the building of the wall, the citizens of the Federal Republic had been authorized to spend visits to the DDR. Only the inhabitants of West Berlin were strictly prevented from crossing the wall. The agreement <u>indicated</u> made possible more hundreds...

p. 55 1.2 from bottom 1965-69 legislature

p.56 1. 13 cut after "blocs" and conclude with the last enclosed page.

Nothing is more difficult than to deal with a text one has
thought about and written many monthes ago !

I hope to meet you soon again .In Paris ?

With warm regards

October 6, 1965

Mr. Alfred Grosser
Cycle Superieur d'Etudes Politiques
Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques
27 Rue Saint-Guillaume
Paris VII, France

Dear Mr. Grosser:

In Professor Kissinger's absence
I am writing to acknowledge the receipt
of your letter of September 25th. He is
on a government mission and will not
return to the office until the beginning
of November.

I have taken the liberty of having
your additions translated and will insert
the small changes which you listed in
your letter.

I will certainly bring this to
Professor Kissinger's attention when he
returns.

Secretary
Joan Blanchard

Sincerely yours,

return.
Professor Klaasinger's attention when he
I will certainly bring this to
your letter.
the small changes which you listed in
your additions translated and will insert
I have taken the liberty of having
of November.

return to the office until the beginning
on a Government mission and will not
of your letter of September 22nd. He is
I am writing to acknowledge the receipt
In Professor Klaasinger's absence

Dear Mr. Grosser:

Paris VII, France

27 Rue Saint-Guillaume

Foundation Nationale des Sciences Politiques

Cycle Supérieur d'Etudes Politiques

Mr. Alfred Grosser

October 6, 1962

FONDATION NATIONALE

DES

SCIENCES POLITIQUES

APR 1 2 1966

PARIS. LE 8 avril 1966

27, RUE SAINT-GUILLAUME (VIIe)

Cher ami,

Pendant ces quelques jours d'arrêt pascal, j'essaye de mettre à jour tous mes dossiers en retard.

Aussi je me permets de vous demander où en est le règlement des 1 000 dollars pour mon chapitre sur la politique extérieure allemande.

Quand le livre va-t-il sortir?
Quel dommage que le délai soit si long entre
la remise des manuscrits et la publication !

Et quand passez-vous par Paris?
Il y aurait beaucoup à discuter dans la sombre
situation actuelle.

Avec mes sentiments cordialement
dévoués,