February 5, 1955

Hamilton Fish Armstrong, Esq.
Editor, Foreign Affairs
56 East 68th Street
New York, N.Y.

Dear Mr. Armstrong:

In the thought that you might like to have the revision
you requested rather quickly, I am sending it on to you without
going over it as carefully as I might wish.

You may consider the argument in regard to the adequacy of
our present force-levels superfluous. But in my conversations
with both Mr. Finletter and the Air Force partisans here, I always
found myself compelled to answer it, and one or two sentences might
help in this respect.

Many thanks for your perceptive comments, which not only have
greatly improved the article, but also have given me another per-
spective on my own editorial labors.

Sincerely yours,

Enclosure

February 5, 1955

Dear Mr. Armstrong:

Sincerely yours,

Enclosure

HAMILTON FISH ARMSTRONG
EDITOR

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

AN AMERICAN QUARTERLY REVIEW

58 EAST SIXTY-EIGHTH STREET, NEW YORK 21

February 8, 1955

Henry A. Kissinger, Esq.
Harvard University
10 Weld Hall
Cambridge 38, Mass.

Dear Mr. Kissinger:

The revised version of your two last paragraphs has come. It seems to me to do the trick. Thank you very much. I'll send the manuscript off to press at once and show you proofs in a few days. You will then be able to correct any errors which may have crept in as a result of my editorial tinkering with the text.

December 12, 1955

Dear Mr. Armstrong:

Thank you for letting me see the article by Atkinson and Yeuell.
As I told you, I know both authors and think well of them, particularly
of Colonel Yeuell, although subtlety and elegance of expression are
not their strong point.

I am in substantial agreement with the article. Rather than
restate my reasons for it, I am enclosing a memorandum which repre-
sents extracts of letters I wrote to the chairmen of the sub-committees
of our study group. Its lack of coherence is due to the fact that
it was dictated rather hurriedly.

As for the article, I have a few minor quibbles with the substance
of it, such as the emphasis on the *Fax Americana* which seems an analogy
more appropriate for the period after an all-out war rather than for
the strategy recommended by the authors. There are a few more illustra-
tions which, I feel, are unfortunate, but I think that a strong edi-
torial hand could take care of them.

Despite my agreement with the substance of the article, it
seems to me that in its present form, it is too diffuse and the language
too pat and exhortatory. I think that the authors are dealing with
six different, but related problems:

1) the nature of our present military policy;

2) its inadequacy for dealing with the problems we are most
likely to confront;

3) the impact of a policy of limited war on our relations
with the Soviet bloc, specifically whether such a policy
would lead to an all-out war;

4) the nature of a U.S. military establishment which could
give effect to such a strategy;

5) the problems of gaining domestic support; and

6) the consistency of our present military policy, and of
the alternative proposed, with our policy of alliances.

Mr. Hamilton Fish Armstrong

-2-

December 12, 1955

As it stands now, the article jumps from one of those problems to the other, from U.S. military policy to Soviet strategy, without ever making clear its emphasis. Also I think that the nature of the military establishment appropriate to the strategy recommended should be spelled out in greater detail. Mobility has become almost a platitude and "taking the initiative" is certainly an overworked phrase. Moreover, unless the authors can give some idea of the budgetary implications of their proposals, critics like Mr. Finletter will remain unconvinced. Of course, the style also needs substantial revision.

I do not know whether these comments and the enclosure are at all helpful. At any rate, I appreciated the opportunity to see the article.

Enc.

Enc.

Henry A. Krasinger

the article.

At any rate, I appreciated the opportunity to see
all helpful. I do not know whether these comments and the enclosures are

unconvinced. Of course, the style also needs substantial revision.
tions of their proposals, critics like Mr. Kin letter will remain
over, unless the authors can give some ideas of the budgetary implica-
and "taking the initiative" in certainly an overworked phrase. More-
spelled out in greater detail. Maturity has become almost a platitude
tary establishment appropriate to the strategy recommended should be
making clear its embarks. Also I think that the nature of the mili-
other, from U.S. military policy to Soviet strategy, without ever
As it stands now, the article jumps from one of those problems to the

Mr. Hamilton Euan Armstrong

December 15, 1922

January 24, 1956

Dear Mr. Armstrong:

Here is the revised version of my article. I have rewritten the top of page 7 to make my meaning a little clearer. If you would like to tinker with it, please feel free to do so.

As for cutting the article, the more I think about the section on the Allies and uncommitted, the more I believe it belongs into this article. The most obvious criticism in its absence would be the impact of the policy I am proposing on our system of alliances and on the uncommitted. As a matter of fact, one person to whom I sent an earlier memorandum embodying some of these ideas made precisely this criticism. I will be glad to discuss other cuts with you, however.

I thought that your letter to Mr. Martin is very good and very subtle. My only suggestion would concern a slight expansion of your third paragraph. I think the danger that other countries in the General Assembly will take over the formulation of proposals is a real one, but you may well give the impression that this is the only problem with which you wish Mr. Martin to deal. The thing I missed in Mr. Martin's presentation at the Council, and which I think should be called to his attention, is his view of what constitutes an acceptable proposal from the American and Canadian point of view (the reverse side of this would be some explanation of what he thought the American proposals were not seriously intended). It is possible, for example that the only proposals we and the Canadians might consider acceptable would not find favor with the majority of the U. N. In short, he should discuss the disarmament proposals not only from the point of view of what proposals we might make to narrow the gap between the U. S. and the USSR, but also whether he believes that this gap can be narrowed at all. All of this is implied in your third and fourth paragraphs, but it may be useful to spell it out.

My only other point is a terminological quibble. Would not directors be a better word (in the first paragraph) than management?

Sincerely yours,

February 3, 1956

Mr. Hamilton Fish Armstrong
Council on Foreign Relations

Dear Mr. Armstrong:

I am going out to SAC for a few days, and rather than bother you again this afternoon I want to put my attitude about this matter in a letter.

I have always distrusted people who have considered ideas a form of merchandise and who, hiding behind protestations of national interest, will circulate them to the maximum number of officials in Washington. I am, therefore, particularly sensitive about this matter.

I did not send my original manuscript to anyone in Washington except to Bill Elliott, and I sent it to him not in his capacity as an official, but as an old friend. It never occurred to me that it might be circulated since in my covering letter I invited him to comment on it. This, I thought, made it sufficiently clear that he was dealing with a draft.

As for the radio broadcast, this was arranged many weeks ago, before there was any question of publishing an article in *Foreign Affairs* and it was in no way related to the substance of the article. I accepted it as a favor to a friend. I refused to accept payment for it, and all I did was answer questions put to me by a panel. Most of the questions concerned technical issues about the relation of offensive to defensive capabilities and the whole thing lasted about 25 minutes.

This whole experience has been an eye-opener to me. Ever since I have come to the Council, it has been impossible for me to say anything or write anything that people would not pick up. I may have to learn to protect my ideas, but I shall not do so with great relish.

Sincerely yours,

August 20, 1956

Mr. Hamilton Fish Armstrong, Editor
Foreign Affairs
58 East 60th Street
New York 21, N.Y.

Dear Ham:

I appreciated the opportunity to read your article. I
think you know me well enough to be sure that my reaction is an
honest one.

Let me answer your specific questions.first. I think the
article should be published; indeed, I believe it to be a substantial
contribution to a confused subject. I think it is fair to all concerned,
with perhaps a slight quibble about the clause characterizing
Nixon's July 4th speech.

I read the article three times and found new dimensions in
it every time I read it. This would seem to me to be the acid test of
a good article. On the other hand, it also seems to me to be its one
weakness at the moment. It is a little diffuse and conversational and
it is not always easy to discover the main thread of your argument, at
least without considerable concentration. The portions that I found
most useful were your description of the various kinds of neutralism,
your explanation for the difference between the Dulles and the
Eisenhower position, and the discussion about the difference between
international morality and domestic morality. A great deal would be
gained in my judgment in making these points a little bit more explicit.
One way of doing so might be to move some of the discussion on pages 21
and 22 into your introductory section so that the flow of your narrative
is not interrupted by what seems another description of neutralist
attitudes. I also found the concluding sections a little bit of a
letdown and they could perhaps be profitably condensed.

My suggestions then, which are probably not very helpful, would
be as follows: that you devote your introductory section substantially
to a discussion of the various kinds of neutralism abroad; that you
move much of the discussion of the distinction between the Eisenhower and
Dulles position into the second section beginning on page 8, and
connecting that discussion with your very profound observations about

FOREIGN

AFFAIRS

AN AMERICAN QUARTERLY REVIEW

58 EAST SIXTY-EIGHTH STREET
NEW YORK 21, N. Y.

CABLE ADDRESS: FORAFFAIRS, NEW YORK

May 13, 1958

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

Dear Henry:

This will be no more than a line or two
to register my pleasure at the prospect of
another contribution from you and to say that
we shall expect to see a draft of your piece
the first week in July and shall count on re-
ceiving the final manuscript the first week in
August.

August 25, 1958

Mr. Hamilton Fish Armstrong
Foreign Affairs
58 East 68th Street
New York, New York

Dear Ham:

I have returned the galleys to Phil. I want to
take this opportunity to thank you for the sensitive job
you have done in editing and to apologize for all the trouble
I am causeing you with my constant revisions. I have sat
on so many committees on this issue and I know opinions are
so chaotic that I hope very much that this may have some useful
impact. For this reason I wanted to be sure that any reader
would understand my awareness of recent events and not dismiss
it as outdated. I would also be very grateful if no deletions
were made without consultation, though of course I always
welcome your subtle editorial pen.

A special word of thanks is due to Phil Quigg for
his unfailing kindness and extraordinarily helpful advice.

Warm regards.

FOREIGN

AFFAIRS

AN AMERICAN QUARTERLY REVIEW

October 8, 1958

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

Dear Henry:

I'll of course be glad to see Judge Shunko
Muto, and if he will call me up on his arrival in
New York, I'll arrange for us to meet.

I'm glad the study group has been satisfactorily
organized. Unfortunately, I'm not going to be able to
be at the first meeting due to an engagement made be-
fore the date was set.

I hope you are as pleased with your article as
we are. I hear people talking about it very gener-
ally even though the press has not made the critical
examination of your thesis and recommendations which
I would have expected.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

AN AMERICAN QUARTERLY REVIEW

PHILIP W. QUIGG
ASSISTANT EDITOR

December 2, 1958

Dear Henry:

I liked your title and I have read what you have written under it with a lot of interest. It is evidently a topic about which you have learnt at first hand, and your testimony is valuable and instructive. It is in this appreciative framework that I want to make my specific comments. I hope they may be useful in propelling you still further along the road that leads to publication in *Foreign Affairs* - for this is just the sort of topic I relish and find difficulty in getting treated in our pages.

If I have a fundamental criticism it is that your main contribution is made in assessing the role and shortcomings of the committee system of decision-making, and that while you describe the phenomena skillfully you do not give them what I feel might be their fullest and deepest setting. True, you just indicate on pages 4 and 5 the background of those who are drawn into committee work. But I feel you might expand the analysis profitably to include more attention to the contemporary social forces that

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger

2.

December 2, 1958

predispose many men to work through committees, in this way making their failings when they find themselves in committees more understandable.

The other day I was reading in the London Times Literary Supplement (October 3 issue) a most interesting review of "The Organization Man" in the light of the parallel phenomena which are developing in England. The reviewer pointed out that the Social Ethic of William James and John Dewey, as adapted to the new physical and social environment of America, asked in regard to any new idea, "Will it work?" and suggested that cooperation was the way to see the idea put into practice, replacing the so-called Protestant Ethic which was motivated by individualistic, competitive drives. And the reviewer wrote:

"At the moment we know only that the secularization of James's pragmatism in the hands of Dewey and his followers has led to the indoctrination of at least two clear generations of Americans in the 'life adjustment' view of education. It has ended in a fervent belief in the perfectibility of society, to be brought about by the techniques of the physical sciences applied to the social sciences. This, so ironically akin to the tenets of practical communism, is the 'scientism' which Mr. Whyte attacks, concentrating with obvious self-control on its Utopian impracticality. He looks with objectivity on such as 'social engineering,' the 'Group Thinkometer' (which registers the combined opinion of a group without any individual having to admit to his part in it), the attempts to find 'ignition levels' in the size and composition of 'leaderless groups' so as to produce group thinking and group creativity, and he says that these techniques do not work. Nevertheless hope that they will work has a great influence on values. Similarly, the belief (again a part of scientism) that consensus, participation and cooperation are unquestionably the most desirable and effective means of attaining all ends is deeply influential, regardless of its truth."

[Y]

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger

3.

December 2, 1958

The relevance of this (e.g. the "Group Thinkometer") for
your line of thought leaps to the eye and suggests that you might
expand your essay in a way to give it more (horrid term!) social
significance, in addition to the technical significance which you
show it has in policy-making. I feel that at one or two places
the article labors the committee idea at just a bit too much
length; pages 7-8, for instance, could (I think) be tightened up
to advantage. And though every one of the points you are making
is relevant, some of them (e.g. the central paragraph on page 11)
struck me as overstated; or (e.g. the paragraph beginning at bot-
tom of page 18) the point is put in a combative way to excite op-
position rather than agreement.

Now, to finish my criticisms, I must say that the last four
or five pages seem to me in parts rather turgid. If you could
express your conclusions in simpler and shorter terms I think the
average reader would be left less breathless.

Now I've said my say as sharply as possible, for that is the
way I can (I hope) be useful. I trust you will put the whole sub-
ject under review and that whether or not my criticisms seem to
you valid and worth taking into account you will produce another
draft and will let me see it. You know how much I admire your
work and how much I want to continue printing it in *Foreign Affairs*

PERSONAL

December 5, 1958

Mr. Hamilton Fish Armstrong
**Foreign Affairs**
58 East 68th Street
New York, New York

Dear Ham:

Thank you so much for your nice and subtle letter of December 2nd. It confirmed once more what I have always known - that you are the most helpful editor with how I have ever had to deal. I will do another draft of my article. If it does not incorporate your suggestions it will not be for lack of trying.

I am however in some embarrassment. I quite agree with you that *Foreign Affairs* is precisely the place where this article will do most good. Moreover, both the editorial help on *Foreign Affairs* and my general sense of obligation to you personally would dispose me to let you have it without question. Unhappily, however, it seems to me that I have gone so far with Max Ascoli - or rather he responded so eagerly to my sending him the manuscript - that I do not see how I can in honor withdraw it from him now unless its length should turn out to be more of a problem to him than it now seems. The reason I sent the article to Ascoli is that Phil's response to my initial draft was so discouraging that I felt there was no interest whatever on the part of *Foreign Affairs*. I say this with no criticism of Phil because the first draft was awful. On the other hand, I mentioned it to you because it seems to me that in my dealings with Phil there is a problem which has bothered me and which I shall expose to you. I think Phil believes that you suspect him of having an undue bias towards me and being the fine person that he is he leans over backwards not to give expression to it. I in turn want to make very sure that I do not seem to take advantage of my friendly relations with you or him and therefore I am often not as direct as I should be. Thus in sending my article to Phil for comment I indicated to him that it was not primarily designed for *Foreign Affairs* partly because I did not wish to embarrass him if he felt he had to refuse. He in turn probably leaned over backwards to be judicious in his comments. The result has been a misunderstanding which may deprive *Foreign Affairs* of this article and what is much worse, may deprive me of the audience that *Foreign Affairs* affords. I hope you do not take this as a criticism of Phil, whom I consider a close friend and a superb editor. It is a situation which has grown up over the years and which I thought you should be aware of.

I look forward to seeing you on the 15th.

FOREIGN

AFFAIRS

AN AMERICAN QUARTERLY REVIEW
HAMILTON FISH ARMSTRONG
EDITOR

58 EAST SIXTY-EIGHTH STREET
NEW YORK 21. N. Y.

CABLE ADDRESS: FOR AFFAIRS, NEW YORK

December 15, 1958

Dear Henry:

In accordance with your request I am glad to
enclose letters of introduction to:

Dr. von Eckhart, Federal Press Chief and one
of Adenauer's closest collaborators. He might also help
with Strauss.

Countess Marion Dönhoff, Editor of "Die Zeit"
in Hamburg, an intelligent and very nice person, well worth
making an effort to see. She is a cousin of my wife's.

Weizäcker you may already know, as he was a
visiting professor at Harvard.

Count Baudissin, formerly the man in the "Amt
Blank" who fought to keep former high Nazi officers out of
the new Germany Army, and to democratize it at the base. He
was transferred not long ago to an active command with troops,
perhaps in Cassel. But you can ask, and perhaps find him.
It would be worth while. He wrote a good article for FOREIGN
AFFAIRS in the October 1955 issue, entitled "The New German
Army."

enclosures

December 18, 1958

Countess Marion Dönhoff
Koesterbergstrasse 60
Hamburg-Blankenese, Germany

Dear Countess Dönhoff:

I will be visiting Germany from January 2nd to
January 25th, and Hamilton Fish Armstrong suggested that
I might take the liberty of calling on you. He gave me
the enclosed letter of introduction. My trip in Germany
is being planned by Dr. Gertrude Thiry of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs. According to her tentative plans I will
be in Hamburg from January 9th to 11th. Perhaps it would
be easiest if you would check with her about my appointments.
I am sure she could suit my schedule to your convenience.

I have long been an admirer of "Die Zeit" and of
your writings in particular, and I would very much appreciate
an opportunity to talk to you.

With many thanks.

January 4, 1960

Mr. Hamilton Fish Armstrong, Editor
**Foreign Affairs**
58 East 68th Street
New York, New York

Dear Ham:

I am not in the habit of writing editors,
but I did want you to know how well I thought
of Kennan's piece in your last issue. It was
intelligent and compassionate, and it is always
a pleasure to read someone who can take an ar-
gument from A to Z.

I wish I could say the same for the article
following. Indeed, if I did not know you better,
I would suspect you of a Machovellian design.
Having failed to obtain a contribution from one
of the Republican contenders, you did the next
best thing for the Republican Party and permitted
Stevenson to express his ideas. Since I know
about your fine editing hand, I would hate to
have seen the first draft.

It has been too long since we have had a
chance to talk.

Best regards.