VI.
Kennan’s next assignment—there having been no enthusiasm on his part or the department’s for his staying in Lisbon—did little to reassure him about Washington’s coordination of military operations with political objectives. The new job was that of political adviser to the American ambassador in Great Britain, John G. Winant, who would be representing the United States on the recently established European Advisory Commission. Created by the British, Americans, and Soviets late in 1943, this organization’s chief responsibility was to settle the terms of Germany’s surrender and to agree on plans for the postwar occupation of that country. But Washington had reached no consensus on how to handle these matters: as a consequence, the EAC could accomplish little. “So far as I could learn from my superiors in the department,” Kennan remembered, “their attitude toward the commission was dominated by a lively concern lest the new body should at some point and by some mischance actually do something.”40
The inactivity might have been harmless had the British and Russians remained similarly inactive, but they did not. By February 1944 both had submitted draft surrender documents, and they had even agreed on occupation zone boundaries. Under their plan, the British would control the northwestern third of Germany, the Americans the southwestern third, and the Russians the eastern third. Berlin, deep within the Soviet zone, would be jointly occupied. Winant pressed Washington for a reaction, but for several weeks received no response. The State Department then forwarded, on March 8, a completely different plan, approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that awarded the United States 46 percent of Germany’s territory and 51 percent of its population, while pushing the Soviet zone far to the east. The proposed boundaries broke up existing German administrative districts but did not extend all the way to the Czech border, leaving control of that region undetermined. No explanation accompanied this plan: Winant was told simply to put it before the EAC as the American position.41
Kennan’s Azores bases experience left him in little doubt about what had happened. Once again the Joint Chiefs had elevated military convenience above all else, and the State Department had unquestioningly passed along their plan. This time Kennan did not have to offer to return to Washington to explain the plan’s deficiencies: his chief, Winant, sent him. The flight, by way of Iceland and Newfoundland, was the worst yet. The plane’s heating system failed halfway across the Atlantic, and while landing at Gander its brakes froze, causing it almost to slide off the runway into the sea. Kennan arrived in Washington again “dazed and unnerved by the vicissitudes of wartime intercontinental travel.” His reception, however, was considerably warmer than it had been the previous fall.42
“The President was kindly, charming, and talked to me at some length,” Kennan reported to Bullitt, with whom he stayed. When shown the Joint Chiefs of Staff proposal, FDR “laughed gaily and said, just as I had expected him to say: ‘Why that’s just something I once drew on the back of an envelope.’” The president agreed that the proposal made no sense and authorized Winant to accept the British-Russian alternative. He spent most of the interview fretting about the British occupation of northwestern Germany—FDR wanted the Americans there—but he showed no concern about Berlin lying within the region the Russians would control. Kennan was relieved to have the confusion cleared up but irate that it had again fallen to him to do it. “Why it should have been left to a junior officer such as myself to jeopardize his own career by going directly to the president on these two separate occasions—why the Department of State could not have taken upon itself this minimal responsibility—was a mystery to me at that time.” It remained so when Kennan wrote that passage in his memoirs more than two decades later.43
Apart from their speed, one of the few benefits of long, uncomfortable transatlantic flights—Kennan took seven between September 1942 and March 1944—was that they allowed time to read: the noise level made conversation impossible. So his traveling companion was Edward Gibbon. It’s not clear how much of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire he got through, but it was enough to influence his thinking on the problems of occupying the territories of defeated adversaries. One passage particularly stuck in his mind. “It is incumbent on the authors of persecution,” Gibbon had written, “to reflect whether they are determined to support it in the last extreme.” If they did so, they risked “excit[ing] the flame which they strive to extinguish; and it soon becomes necessary to chastise the contumacy, as well as the crime, of the offender.”44
That, Kennan believed, was what the policy of unconditional surrender, agreed upon by Roosevelt and Churchill at the Casablanca conference in January 1943, was likely to do. It suggested no concern over “the amount of responsibility we are assuming in Germany.” It reflected “no desire, and no real plan, for acquiring allies and helpers among the German people.” It implied taking the harshest measures possible “short of actual physical extermination.” It would demand “a ruthlessness now foreign to our troops,” giving them “the worst possible lessons in the practices of government.” And, he added, “[i]t will certainly require, to be successful, a far greater degree of unity of purpose and method than can conceivably be achieved at this time between the Russians and ourselves.”45
So what to do? “We must keep quite separate in our minds our program for the treatment of Germany, and the type of surrender document we want. The latter should serve the former.” That meant focusing on the military defeat of Germany, the removal and punishment of “the most conspicuous and notorious Nazi leaders,” and the elimination “of all possibility for further oppression and aggression.” It did not mean thorough denazification:
There is no thornier or more thankless task… than that of trying to probe into the political records and motives of masses of individuals in a foreign country. It is impossible to avoid injustices, errors, and resentment. It involves the maintenance of a huge, and necessarily unpopular, investigative apparatus…. We will eventually get caught up in a round of denunciation, confusion, and disunity from which none but the Germans would stand to profit.
Such an approach would leave no Germans running the country, for “[w]hether we like it or not, nine-tenths of what is strong, able, and respected in Germany has been poured into those very categories which we have in mind.”
Leaving some Nazis in power would not be popular. But the German resistance to Hitler had shown itself to be weak and disorganized, and even if it were stronger, “the worst service we could render to the liberal and democratic elements in Germany would be to saddle them with public responsibility at the moment of catastrophe and humiliation.” Far better, then, to let lesser Nazis bear that burden under restrictions the Allies imposed and leave the German people eventually to kick them out. That would be “a profoundly democratic approach.”
The fundamental American interest in Germany, Kennan concluded in a memorandum he sent Admiral Leahy at the White House, was “to see that no European power acquires the possibility of using Europe’s resources to conduct aggression outside the continent of Europe.” In a broader sense, it was also an American objective “to see that western Europe survives and prospers as a major cultural force in the world.” This would require “patient, persistent and intelligent” efforts over a considerable period of time, with the goal of achieving “the maximum degree of federation in Europe.” That, in turn, would depend upon enlisting German resources in the rehabilitation of European life. And what if the Soviet Union—also an occupier of Germany—should disagree? In that case, “we will be right and they will be wrong, and we will have to find ways of persuading them to accept our view.”46