It was a delight to watch him probe some sphinxlike announcement in Pravda for what might lie within or behind it, recalling some obscure incident in Bolshevik history or a personality conflict within the Party, quoting a passage from Dostoevsky on Russian character, or citing a parallel in Tsarist foreign policy. His subtle intellect swept the range of possibilities like a radar attuned to the unseen.
Patricia Davies regarded Kennan quite simply as “a giant among the dwarves.” But he remained a puzzle, even to his closest friends.31
Durbrow, for example, thought him cool, calculating, and ambitious: “George, in his not too pushy a way, was going to get ahead, by golly, if it was the last thing he did.” He was “very sure of himself. I never saw him fly off the handle. I fly off the handle all the time, myself, so I would have noticed that.” Loy Henderson agreed about the ambition but not the self-control. Kennan was emotionally fragile: “It was difficult for him to take unpleasant things.” Perhaps as a result, ulcers still plagued him, although drinking milk helped. So did physical activity, for which the dacha outside Moscow substituted at least in part for the farm outside East Berlin. Henderson also remembered Kennan tending “to look down in a patronizing way on people whom he didn’t consider as intellectuals. He would make little remarks now and then indicating that the person was not in his class.”
Martha Mautner, however, had a different impression. Kennan “liked to have disciples—people who would sit at his feet, [but he] tended to treat everyone on an equal basis, even the most junior people. He used to talk with us a good deal, I guess as a way of blowing off steam. I thought at the time that it was unusual for someone in his position to be unloading this kind of thing on people like me.” William A. Crawford, a young Foreign Service officer who arrived just as the war was ending, found Kennan very accessible. He ran “informal little confabs” on whatever he thought worth discussing. His personal interest extended beyond professional work: “You felt a very close relationship to him.”32
Dorothy Hessman, who knew Kennan as well as anyone outside his family, saw that his apparent aloofness concealed shyness. He was “very approachable, if you made the first move. He didn’t want to give the impression that you had to respond to any gesture of friendliness that he would make.” There were no Valentine’s Day cards in Moscow, so on one such occasion she and another secretary sent him a little verse. Fond of rhyming, he sent one back. The Kennans regularly hosted sing-alongs in the Finnsky Dom, with George playing the guitar: that was the rehearsal site, also, for Christmas carols. Patricia Davies thought him “very gentle, really, even with rather tiresome people.” Mautner remembered him serving as a crown-bearer, with Frank Roberts, at an Orthodox wedding for two friends: “I can still see them to this day, holding these crowns during this long service, Kennan very tall and Roberts quite short, their arms getting tireder and tireder.”33
Roberts thought Kennan an idealist and a realist at the same time. He was always “trying to find the morally best solution, while at the same time not ignoring the realities of the situation.” Berlin sensed piety: he could not help feeling himself “in the presence of a dedicated preacher, in front of whom one can’t tell off-color jokes. You can’t enjoy yourself too openly. No boisterous laughter permitted. To some extent, he casts a lampshade over the room. Bright lights have to be dimmed a little.”34
Kennan’s Russian, Crawford remembered, evoked respect even among native speakers for its fluency and elegance. Bohlen’s was that of the street, “colloquial, expressive, pungent,” while Kennan’s was “the Russian of Pushkin.” He “loved the Russians,” Berlin insisted. “He responded to Russian books, and the Russian character. I had long conversations with him about Moscow versus Petersburg, the Slavophiles, the Westerners, the development of Russian art.” But Kennan had no illusions about the Soviet Union. “I think that maybe Harriman did, or chose not to look.” Berlin saw Kennan as much more appalled by evil than Bohlen, who liked to regale listeners with accounts of the Big Three meetings, all of which he had attended. “The cynicism of Roosevelt, the bellicosity, the insensitivity, of Churchill, and the cunning of Stalin” shocked Kennan, “whereas for Chip, it was a play with various characters.” It was not his habit to think “about the spiritual awfulness of it.”35
With Bohlen in Moscow for the foreign ministers’ conference, the Davieses got to watch him argue with Kennan. American policy was still off limits—at least before witnesses—but as Patricia recalled: “Oh, boy, on the Soviet Union!” No one struck physical blows, but “the verbal blows were very very heavy.” Given their ferocity, John found it remarkable that the conversations remained friendly: “There were no nasty personal attacks.” But as Patricia pointed out, “They had a very different outlook, my goodness.” Berlin specified, in his characteristic rapid-fire diction, what set Kennan apart from Bohlen:
Interest in ideology. Intellectualism of a certain kind. Ideas. Deep interest in, and constant thought, in terms of attitudes, ideas, traditions, what might be called cultural peculiarities of countries and attitudes, forms of life. Not simply move after move; not chess. Not just evidence of this document, that document, showing that what they wanted was northern Bulgaria, or southern Greece. But also mentalités.
For Kennan, communism was “an enemy to everything one believed in. He was a grave observer of spiritual phenomena, some white, some black. Nothing much in between. One was either with us or against us. At that time, it certainly felt like that.”36
Annelise monitored George’s intensity closely. “She [held] him down to earth,” Patricia Davies recalled. He could be “rather impractical in many ways, maybe even slightly grandiose,” but Annelise had ways “of pricking bubbles.” It was difficult for him to get a big head, or even “the slightest little swelling. The prick would be there.” She was “an extraordinary person, very strong,” and with a good sense of humor. And George relied on her in all kinds of ways. Embassy colleagues could tell when Annelise was away, because he would come down to the office “in the darndest getups.” Patricia wouldn’t say anything to George about the weird combinations of socks, shirts, and ties, but she did mention it to Annelise one day, after she got back: “I just thought you ought to know.” “Oh, of course,” she explained, “I always lay everything out because you know he’s color blind.”37
That was George Kennan on the eve of becoming famous: he saw what others saw, but in different colors. He had always done so, whether because of loneliness, sensitivity, ambition, intelligence, imagination, impatience, or patriotism. He had a historian’s consciousness of the past, which gave him a visionary’s perspective on the future. Within the mundane present, however, he could come across—like his selections of socks, shirts, and ties in Annelise’s absence—as a bit weird. How did it feel, Patricia Davies asked him one day toward the end of 1945, to be so much more of a hard-liner than anyone else? “I foresee that the day will come,” he replied somberly, “when I will be accused of being pro-Soviet, with exactly as much vehemence as I am now accused of being anti-Soviet.” She thought it then “one of the silliest things I’d ever heard,” but years later after this had indeed happened, “I brought it up with him. He had forgotten, although it was no surprise to him that he had said it.”38