hurt and a bit drunk, tried to mollify [him], but did not retract his position.” Big businessmen, Bohlen retorted, could not be trusted. “I hope you have an ironclad contract, boy. . . . One day Paul Hoffman will decide that it is all over —and you’ ll be swept out with the leavings.”
George said that he couldn’t get anyone to listen to him in Washington. Chip said that he gave up too easily; that you just have to keep plugging away.... George said that he felt that his intellectual integrity was being compromised.... Chip said to hell with his intellectual integrity; that if George had been on the spot in Washington [last] fall, US policy might not have got into its present mess.
They struck Schlesinger as “a marvelous pair.... They loved each other and were enthralling company together.” In the end, Kennan withdrew yet another resignation, explaining to Hoffman that State Department colleagues had “called me in the middle of the night” pleading “that I not take this step at this time—that it would be taken as another blow to Dean Acheson.”
So Hoffman agreed to pay his salary for as long as the department would permit Kennan to be away, with the understanding that the job would become permanent as soon as he qualified for his Foreign Service pension and could gracefully retire. Ford also promised the Institute $225,000 over the next five years to fund whatever projects Kennan wished to undertake there. It was all “somewhat complicated,” George wrote Kent, “but by and large it is as favorable a setup as I could wish for. I enjoy the life of a scholar and have little wish to return to government.”18
Kennan had two major projects in mind beyond his own writing and public speaking. One was to set up a study group, at the Institute, that would “suggest a
There was more to this initiative than met the eye. Hoffman had maintained close connections with Wisner’s Office of Policy Coordination while administering the Marshall Plan, and he wanted the Ford Foundation, under his direction, to do the same. That made Kennan particularly useful to him. Kennan, in turn, kept Acheson, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, and the new director of central intelligence, Walter Bedell Smith, informed about the Free Russia Fund—which, to avoid confusion with other CIA projects, changed its name a few months later to the East European Fund. The new organization operated openly, relying on Ford Foundation support, but it coordinated its activities with other refugee support groups that received, or were hoping to receive, secret CIA funding. Their purpose was to collect recent intelligence on the U.S.S.R., to ensure that defectors did not re-defect, and to build a community of exiles who might one day return to Russia to form the nucleus of a post-Soviet government.20
One beneficiary was the Tolstoy Foundation, established in 1939 by Leo Tolstoy’s youngest daughter, which ran a farm in upstate New York where it welcomed, trained, and helped resettle Russian refugees. The organization was running out of money by 1951, so Kennan arranged an initial grant through the East European Fund, and after the Ford trustees had second thoughts—perhaps because of the group’s monarchist tendencies—he persuaded the CIA to subsidize it. “[W]hat the hell was wrong with this?” Kennan demanded years later, after this information became public. “There were Russian professors working as janitors in seamy New York buildings, because nobody had made any effort to tap their knowledge, to help them learn the language, to put them to some use, something useful for them and for us. It was things like this that I had supposed we could do with an outfit for secret operations.”
Kennan was even prouder of his role in helping to publish cheap editions of Russian literary classics—in the original Russian—that could never have appeared in the Soviet Union. This project originated as an initiative of the banker R. Gordon Wasson, the man who persuaded Kennan, in 1947, to contribute what became the “X” article to
The Ford Foundation appointment, however, left Kennan with less time for his own work than he had expected. It required several trips each year to California, never a preferred destination, where Hoffman ran the organization from Pasadena. The emigres Kennan tried to help often disagreed about what was needed. The foundation’s trustees continued to fret about Hoffman’s—and Kennan’s—ties to the intelligence community. The whole effort required so much attention, Kennan complained in the fall of 1951, that it was “mak[ing] ridiculous my continued presence here at the Institute under the pretense of being a scholar.”21 Meanwhile Kennan was undergoing one of the gravest personal crises that ever afflicted him.
V.
Hans Morgenthau had arranged for Kennan to deliver a second set of lectures, in April at the University of Chicago, under the sponsorship of the Charles R. Walgreen Foundation. The topic would be U.S. foreign relations during the first half of the twentieth century. By early 1951 he had prepared rough drafts on the Spanish-American War, the Open Door Policy, and East Asia through the outbreak of war with Japan in 1941. He also had notes for a lecture on Woodrow Wilson and World War I, and these he casually showed to Earle, who tactfully suggested bringing in a few diplomatic historians to comment on Kennan’s conclusions prior to their delivery. He agreed. It was easy to forget, he admitted to Hoffman, “how serious a matter scholarship can be, and how implacable its requirements.”22
The historians included Dexter Perkins, Gordon A. Craig, Richard W. Leopold, and Wilson’s biographer, Arthur S. Link. The seminar took place at the Institute on March 10. “Most of us were pretty appalled,” Link remembered. The lectures were “ahistorical, very presentist and personal, lacking even the semblance of what we would ordinarily think of as historical scholarship.” Kennan showed no resentment of the criticisms he got: “Quite the contrary, he seemed very grateful.” He kept assuring the group that “of course I’m not a professional historian.” But the experience shook his self-confidence about doing history, only a month before his public debut as a historian. “They took me to pieces, quite properly.” Dean Rusk, now a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation, heard that Oppenheimer called Kennan in to give him “a shirt-tail lecture on the standards that were expected in the world of scholarship. George’s later books reflect the influence of that lecture.”23
Something else, simultaneously, was causing Kennan to take himself to pieces. Were it not for the diary in which he could atone for “the damage I have done,” he wrote in it on April 2, “the situation would indeed be desperate.” For he had placed the happiness of others in jeopardy. Unsure “that the blow would not still fall, I would continue to feel myself half a murderer, to have horror of myself, and to place limitations, in my own mind, on my ability to be useful to anyone else in any physical intimacy.” He was “like a person who has placed poison in one of two glasses before a person he loves—looks back upon his act with horror and incredulity—but still does not know from which glass the person will drink.” The next day he added: “It is right and necessary that I should become much older in a short space of time.”
He found some solace in the daily rhythms of work, “where people wear their professional personalities like
