1964 – Packard Speeches

Box 2, Folder 61 – General Speeches


March 1, 1964, Address at 100th Anniversary of the University of Denver, Alumnae of U. of Denver, Denver


3/1/64, Typewritten copy of text of Packard’s address on the above occasion.


Packard congratulates all on their “exiting new plans you have prepared and on the successful completion of the first stage of your program for New Resources….I hope it will come as no surprise to you when I suggest that your success in this great job is only the beginning. It is, indeed, only the beginning because Denver University has a unique opportunity for leadership, and is therefore in a position of great responsibility, and you as its Alumni and friends share that responsibility”


Packard says “We look to Denver along with our other great Universities for many things. We expect them to provide a good education for our youth, an education in breadth and depth beyond the level of common knowledge.”


“We expect our Universities to push forward the frontiers of knowledge, scientific knowledge by research and investigation, knowledge of human relations and human affairs by research and objective scholarly discussion. We expect them to disseminate this knowledge through graduate study and publications.


“We expect our Universities to train practitioners in law, in medicine, in engineering, in business administration, and in all of the other professions necessary for the proper working of our society.


“We expect them to be involved in public service, not only in local and national affairs, but in international affairs, as well.


“Above all we want our Universities to develop for us responsible and capable men and women who will match the demands of citizenship and leadership for the future of America.”


Referring to the New Goals and New Tasks prepared by Chancellor Alter and the faculty, Packard says “They are clearly the commitment of a great University to meet some of the challenges which have been placed at its door by a changing world – by an expanding universe.”


Packard feels the University of Denver has “a special reason to meet this challenge…because you have here the only great privately supported University in the Rocky Mountain Region. This is important not because your school, or any other privately supported school, is or should be better than the State supported institutions, but rather because it has turned out in education , as in other affairs, diversity is the key to freedom and to excellence for all.


“Our privately supported, and therefore hopefully independent, Universities provide this diversity with the State supported schools, They have a flexibility undertake new programs, to provide leadership in areas new and old, often not available to schools which must look to the legislatures for their support, and unfortunately sometimes, for their guidance.”


Packard takes on a brief history of the development of the University of Denver and of Universities in general. “Denver University began as the Colorado Seminary on March 5, 1864. Its founders stated that it was to be a “school of high grade – an ornament to our City and a fitting monument to her liberality”. Its first classes were limited to academic subjects, ancient and modern language and music. How then did it develop from this modest beginning to the great multi-faceted institution that it is today.


“There were many influences, local and national, that have moulded [sic] the development of your University. From the local community came the desire to nurture a great private school. The need of hour community for professional people, doctors, lawyers, had its influence. More recently, recognition by the community of the value of research – belief that an important research center here would be a great asset in the economic life of the community has been a factor. Beyond the needs of the community, and the vision of the leaders of Denver and of Colorado, your University has been profoundly influenced by the same factors which have influenced the University as an institution throughout America.”


”Harvard College was founded in 1636 “to advance learning and perpetuate it to posterity; dreading to leave an illiterate ministry to the churches”. William and Mary 1793, Yale 1701, Columbia in 1754 and others, have been founded early. All of these early schools were built on the pattern of the English colleges at Oxford and Cambridge. These early American Colleges were all influenced by the Christian humanism of the Seventeenth Century. They taught a relatively fixed body of knowledge, believed in the discipline of mental faculties, and had a strong undergirding of Christian moral philosophy, The virility of these influences was such that they can be clearly recognized in all of our Universities of today, and have a strong influence in the discussions as to what our Universities should be tomorrow.”


”The institution which has become the University of today, as contrasted with the college or professional school, can trace its antecedents back to Greece. It can find roots from the Middle Ages, was highly influenced, and still is, by the English pattern. But the essential characteristics which make a school a University came from Germany. The establishment of the University of Berlin in 1809, with emphasis on philosophy and science, on research and graduate instruction, and on the freedom of professors and students, was the beginning. The emphasis on research and graduate instruction was a clear break from the theological influence of the English pattern This broke the bonds of stagnation in the body of knowledge taught and preserved by the Universities, and opened the door to modern scientific progress.”


“There were also two unique and immensely important characteristics of our modern Universities which were developed here at home in America.


“The first was the concept that every young man or young woman of ability should have the opportunity for a higher education, regardless of his social standing or his financial ability”


Packard mentions the Morrill Act, passed two years before the Colorado Seminary was founded, and says that “This was the land grant act designed to support colleges to teach agricultural and industrial arts. This provided the foundation of engineering schools, agricultural schools, extension services, and a vast range of activities directed toward practical usefulness, and toward involvement with the community at large. It is a typically American development in education, and one which has enabled our institutions of higher education to contribute greatly in specific ways to the economic growth of our Country.


“[These] influences, the British, the German, and the American, have brought forth the University as we know it today, largely in the 100 year period between the founding of the Colorado Seminary of 1864 and the Denver University of 1964….As Clark Kerr, Chancellor of the University of California, puts it, “A University anywhere can aim no higher than to be as British as possible for the sake of the undergraduate, as German as possible for the sake of the graduates and the research personnel, as American as possible for the sake of the public at large, and then he goes on to add, “and as confused as possible for the sake of the preservation of the whole uneasy balance”.


Saying that “the desire to pursue this multiplicity of aims has brought about considerable confusion in all of our Universities”, Packard explains that the confusion exists “as to whether teaching or research is more important, …whether science or the humanities is the more worthy goal, …[and] whether learning should be pursued for its own sake or for the practical benefits which may derive to the student or the public at large.”


Regarding the “question of whether the four year undergraduate program belongs in the University”, Packard says that “[it] remains an integral part of the American University because of the Alumnae” who fondly remember “our four years at old U, our fraternity brothers, our classmates, our team. We have not been willing to let these educators corrupt our school with nothing but graduate study and research, even though this might, in fact, be a more effective utilization of the capability and resources of our University.”


Packard feels “There are bound to be some changes in the traditional structure of our Universities simply because there are so many things going on in the educational scene of today which are stretching the capacity of the traditional patterns. For one thing, there is just so much new knowledge being generated that a student can hardly obtain an education adequate for much of anything in just  four years. This problem has been solved in part by pushing down on the lower years. In science and engineering many subjects which used to be taught in graduate classes are now covered in the junior and senior years. Most high school students in the better high schools are ahead in many areas of the freshmen and sophomores of two or three decades ago.


“Another trend comes from the desire to reduce the old compartmentalization of subjects, to bring various areas of learning in a closer relationship with each other.”


“Everywhere we hear of a desire for more emphasis on liberal studies and humanities. This desire is not without merit. It comes on top of a clearly defined need for more education in science, engineering, law, medicine, and every other subject in the catalogue of courses. The need for more and better education is so great, we just should not allow ourselves to be limited to the same old packages we have been using for the last century.


“…we have large waves of new students clamoring for an education, knocking at the doors of all of our schools. Every private University is facing this problem in the same way – limit the size of the undergraduate college, let it seek excellence as its goal – and turn the rest of the youngsters over to the Governor. We should have some concern as to what will happen as our private Universities upgrade their admission standards in their search for excellence, turning increasing numbers of the sons and daughters of their friends and alumnae sway, while they look to these friends and alumnae to help pay for this excellence….how long it will continue to bear this strain remains to be seen.”


Packard expresses the opinion that “our past and present fixation on the importance of the undergraduate program and the Baccalaureate degree will eventually break down. Four years of college is no longer adequate to educate a “Responsible Individual” which your Chancellor has properly defined as one of your goals, for the complexities of modern society. The concept that one must become a Bachelor first, in order to proceed with advanced studies, stems from the 13th Century. It seems possible that it might eventually outlive its usefulness, if it has not already done so.”


“ Research is rapidly becoming a more important function of the American University. This trend has been accelerated during the past two decades by the rapidly expanding allocation of Federal funds for research….Funds for research, I presume, a good share from the Federal Government, are the largest single source of financial support for Denver University. This is true also for most other Universities today.”


…“So far the arguments are strong for a continual high level funding of research at our Universities but the growth of funds is likely to be slower in the future.


“Strangely enough there is a division of opinion among University people as to whether support of research at Universities by business and industry is a good thing for the University.  Where a University has an associated Research Institute, as you have here at Denver, or as we have at Stanford, industrial support seems to be preferred – although an examination of the research budgets often indicates this preference is frequently honored by its breach, rather than its observance.”


Packard speaks of the increasingly high cost of doing research and says that, “This almost malignant growth of research has generated active concern among many faculty, administrators, trustees, and alumni, who would like to see more emphasis placed on education in general, and the humanities in particular. This concern will certainly generate more effort to develop the non-research functions of the American University, but whether there will be any significant change in balance remains to be seen.


“And, finally, there has been a substantial increase in the involvement of Universities in public affairs. The increasing number of professors in Washington is one evidence. The increasing involvement in International problems is another which includes the involvement of both faculty and students. The University is no longer the Ivory Tower where learning is sought only for its own sake, but rather is squarely in the main stream of the practical affairs of the world.


“And to the local scene the University has also become a great asset. New industrial complexes have sprung up around our Universities. Industries have moved to the area of Universities, attracted by the new knowledge being generated by research. New businesses have been founded by young men educated in new fields of science and technology, In an era where industry is often based on ideas, rather than on transportation and the localities of markets, Universities become much more of a mainspring of economic growth than ever in the past.”


“But, as important as these structural patterns and utilitarian uses of a University may seem, these structural patterns and utilitarian uses must never be allowed to overshadow the fact that a University is primarily an institution where independent inquiry and independent teaching must prevail. The University will continue to be a vital institution in our society only so long as it remains a place where truth can be pursued, wherever it may lead. Utilitarian benefits can, at best, be only by-products.


“It is for this reason that the bulwark of any University which seeks excellence is Academic Freedom. If we are to preserve Academic Freedom we must accept the fact that our professors will sometimes teach something with which we don’t agree. They may take positions on subjects which will offend some of us. Their students, too, may make statements, write editorials in their papers, or do other things which will seem to be at odds  with the conventional wisdom of their elders. Nothing can be more damaging to the public-at-large, to take restrictive action on anything less than the most irresponsible abuse of Academic Freedom. And, they must be overly generous in their definition of irresponsibility.”


In closing, Packard says “I would encourage you to remember that the University is an immensely complex and an immensely important institution. Is faculty and its administrators face an almost impossible task as they strive to find the proper balance among the many things which are expected of them. In undertaking to meet the “New Goals and New Tasks” they have established for your University, they have accepted the challenge as they should. They need and they deserve your devoted and most understanding support. I salute your vision, and I wish you well.”


11/13/63, Letter to Packard from John A. Love, Governor of  Colorado, inviting Packard to speak at a dinner meeting the following March observing the 100th Anniversary of the University of Denver.

12/3/63, Copy of letter from Packard to Governor Love accepting the invitation to speak.

12/16/63, Letter to Packard from Gov. Love saying he would write later with more background and ideas.

2/26/64, Note from “lmn” at Stanford enclosing a copy of an article from the Denver Post discussing the protests from college and university administrators about Gov. Love’s budget for education.

3/4/64, Letter to Packard from Robert S. McCollum, Vice Chancellor, thanking Packard for participating in the dinner.

3/26/64, Letter to Packard from Chester M. Alter Chancellor, thanking Packard for his participation in the dinner.

3/30/64, Copy of letter from Packard to Chancellor Alter thinking him for his note and enclosing a copy of his address.

Undated, Clipping from Rocky Mountain News about Packard’s talk at Denver University.

January/February 1964, Publication from Colorado National Bank on research at Denver University.

Pamphlet of general information about Denver University.


Box 2, Folder 62 – General Speeches


June 1, 1964 – Self Enlightenment, The Key to Progress, Colorado College Commencement Address, Colorado Springs


Packard tells his audience that both of his parents graduated from Colorado College about the turn of the century, and he describes differences in living conditions between then and now – six decades later. Packard says the “America of sixty years ago was very primitive.


“The horse was the main means of private locomotion. There was no radio, no television. There were few telephones—about one for every one hundred people.  Considerable progress had been made medicine, but typhoid fever, diphtheria, pneumonia, tuberculosis, and other serious diseases would take their toll of the graduating class before its members reached their prime in life. Many of their children would not survive to college age. Just a few examples will serve to emphasize what vast changes have been effected by the advance of scientific knowledge.”


To draw the contrast with current living standards Packard says “Today you are able to fly to almost any city in the world in less time and much more comfort than your granPackardarents could travel to New York or San Francisco.

Radio and television bring important events to your living room, and the best entertainment and music, too…You can dial directly to nearly every telephone in the country, and there are nearly as many telephones in the nation now as there are people your age or older to use them. Progress in medicine has given your generation at least fifteen more years life expectancy than the generation of your granPackardarents.”


Having described these changes Packard goes on to say that “The quality of civilization is not measured, however, by science and its products alone, but rather by the vast range of social and political relationships between people and between groups of people. Science may be used to improve or degrade social and political relationships, or these may be improved or degraded quite apart from science and its products.  I believe there has been very substantial social and political progress, as well as scientific progress, during the period we are considering today, and I would like to review an example or two for you.”


In describing the quality of life at the beginning of the century Packard say “…life was not so bad ….Family life on the better farms throughout America was comfortable and satisfying, even though it did involve a good deal of hard work. Merchants and professional people had ample opportunity to enjoy a good life….

But life for the working man in the mines, and in most industries, was certainly unattractive. One dollar a day was a typical wage for vast numbers of people in America They and their families had no security against sickness or other misfortune. The prevailing attitude of business management was that labor was a commodity to be bought and sold on the open market, and at the lowest price that would produce the strong backs necessary for the job. These conditions had spawned the labor union movement and contributed to its growing strength.


“The first four decades of the twentieth century were filled with bitter strife and violence as the working man sought a wage on which he could raise his family and could maintain his dignity as a human being.”


Packard says that “In the thirties the federal government increased its participation in the labor problem, and progress was more rapid. Finally, a revolution in the attitude of management people has accelerated the progress so that the laboring man in this country eventually won his rightful place in our society. From $1 a day to $20 a day is about the measure of the average economic gain of this social revolution. To this has been added a large package of other benefits—compensation for accidents, sickness and unemployment insurance, retirement pay, and similar innovations which are now the accepted rights of the working man.

While these changes have come about largely through the pressure of the labor unions, and the intervention of the federal government, they have also been stimulated by a far—reaching revolution in management philosophy. I believe this philosophical revolution may in the end represent as important a chapter in social progress as the gains which have been achieved for the working people.”


Packard says that he believes “this revolution in labor and management attitudes is at least one example of social progress which is as important as some of the scientific progress which has been achieved since the time of your granPackardarents.


“This is also a good example of how social progress is achieved. We see three mechanisms which can hasten the evolutionary process. Under the first mechanism, the people who are aggrieved react to build up a countervailing force of power….I our example, the countervailing power was the union movement. The second mechanism is that a super authority can intervene, as the federal government has done in labor affairs. The third and best mechanism is that the people in a position to improve the situation can do so by a process of self-enlightening action This is the best mechanism because it is the method of reason rather than the method of emotion or tyranny. This mechanism is most likely to provide permanent progress, for it implies that what is done is considered right by all concerned.”


“We can already see these three mechanisms at work in the civil rights problem. The militant leadership of the minority groups is building up its countervailing power in an attempt to correct the aggrievement. The government, as a super authority, has intervened. Fortunately there is already considerable self-enlightenment of those who are in a position to improve the situation by their own actions. I am confident this third, and most important, mechanism will come into play more rapidly and more effectively in the civil rights problem than it did in the labor problem. If so, we can indeed credit these times with important social progress.


“It would be fortunate if those in the best position to do so were always able to bring about the correction of social injustice through their own enlightened action. Much strife would be avo8ded, and things would be easier for our governments. I do not think this is likely to happen—even with small problems. I am afraid force will continue to be an important corrective action in social problems for some time to come.”


Packard turns to international affairs saying that “During the first half of this century there was no evidence whatever of any progress in the relationships between nations, nor reduction in the brutality of dictatorship rule. Two of the most extensive and bloody wars the world has ever seen have occurred. The leadership of communism has murdered millions of people in cold blood, simply because these people cherished their freedom, or because they wanted to own the land that was their heritage. Fascist leaders murdered mullions of people simply because of their ancestors. And millions of people have continued to die of starvation. One cannot consider progress to have been made in any sense of the word. In fact, it would be hard to find a time of comparable length in the history of mankind when as may lives have been brutally and uselessly sacrificed. Reading the day-to-day headlines does not show much evidence that the situation is likely to improve.”


Self-enlightenment, or reason, seems to be even less likely among nations than among individuals. Warfare, then, has become the accepted means of attempting to solve nation differences. But the twentieth century has brought a change which could be the decisive element for real progress in international affairs. As many would caution, it could also be the element to end all civilization. I mean, of course, the nuclear weapon.”


Packard quotes Arnold Toynbee as saying that with the advent of nuclear power “the whole human race has been united on a military plane, the choice confronting us may be one between going all the way to unity, or going under.”


“Packard says that “I, for one, believe we should take the optimistic view, now that we have the chance, and should attempt to go all the way to unity—by that I mean to Universal Peace. I believe the threat of the nuclear weapon may turn out to be the super authority, which will final move nations into self-enlightened action—something which could never be done before.”


“Everyone agrees that this is the century of science, that scientific achievement has been accelerating at a tremendous pace and will continue to do so. This can also become the century of social and political progress. Some progress has already been made, but we have not yet determined the outcome. The outcome will be determined when we recognize that final and permanent change for the better in all human affairs comes not from strife between people, or groups of people,  attempting to force acceptance of their views; not from power imposed by a super authority, but only from self-enlightened action of all concerned whether they be individuals or nations. This is the challenge and the responsibility of the free society.”




6/1/64, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech at Commencement Ceremony for Colorado College.

6/1/64,  Typewritten draft of this address with handwritten notes by Packard.

6/1/64, Copy of the Calendar of Events for the Commencement

6/1/64, List of Senior Honors and Awards

11/14/64, Letter to Packard from Lloyd E. Worner, President Colorado College, asking Packard to be their Commencement speaker.

12/3/64, Copy of letter from Packard to Lloyd E. Worner saying he can be available for the Commencement.

1/3/64, Letter to Packard from Lloyd E. Worner thanking him for accepting the invitation.

3/10/64, Copy of letter to Lloyd E. Worner from Margaret Paull, Packard’s secretary, saying Packard will be available to meet with Worner on March 18th.

3/27/64, Note to Packard from Lloyd E. Worner saying he enjoyed the visit to the HP plant.

3/26/64, Letter to Packard from Lorena A. Berger asking for Packard’s measurements for an academic costume.

4/20/64, Copy of a letter from Packard to Lloyd E. Worner giving arrival time in Colorado Springs.

4/30/64, Letter to Packard from Lloyd E. Worner giving schedules.

5/12/64, Letter to Packard from George A. Miller of Colorado College asking for a copy of Packard’s address for publicity purposes.

5/21/64, Letter from Margaret Paull to George A. Miller sending a copy of Packard’s forthcoming talk.

5/11/64, Letter to Packard from K. J. Curran, Dean of the College giving details on visit schedule.

6/5/64, Note to Packard from Ray Wilbur saying he and wife enjoyed Packard’s talk.

6/8/64, Note from Lloyd E. Worner to Packard thanking him for a pledge and for participating in the Commencement.

6/22/64, Handwritten letter to Packard from Karl K. Zimmermann, giving congratulations.

Undated letter to Packard from E. F. Turner of Sunnyvale asking for a copy of Packard’s talk, and sending a copy of a paper he had written.

Several newspaper clippings about the Commencement and Packard’s address.

2/28/67, Letter to Packard from Frances G. Robinson, Press and Publications Service, asking for permission to reprint Packard’s address on 6/1/64 at Colorado College.


Box 2, Folder 63 – General Speeches


September 16, 1964, Industry’s New Challenge, The Management of Creativity,

September 16, 1964 – Harvard Business School Club of Northern California, South San Francisco

September 22, 1964 – Aerojet General Management Club, Azusa

September 23, 1964 – WEMA, San Diego

Packard gave the same talk to these three organizations on the dates indicated. The title on his talk was also announced as “Observations on Management”

9/23/64, Typewritten text of Packard address to WEMA on this date.


Packard congratulates the members of the audience on efforts to make San Diego “one of the very important centers in the electronics field”, saying they “deserve a great deal of credit and recognition for this. He tells them that he would like to talk about some things of a general nature, but which he thinks are important.


Looking at the problems that face the electronics industry, Packard feels that “in spite of the political influences and other things that may affect our business, the final analysis of  how well our own firms do depends on how good a management job we do as individuals” adding that  “I am not very much inclined to pass the blame on to somebody else…. So I am going to discuss this matter of management and some of the things I think need emphasis.”


“Traditional concepts of management” Packard says, …were directed toward the job of managing men, materials, and money in order to determine where responsibilities should be assigned. However, over the past couple of decades Packard feels there has been a change…”Essentially it is that the management job has become a larger one than simply handling manpower, materials, and money. It has become one of…how to nurture creativity…how to manage our ideas…and how to develop people who have ideas. In other words, ideas are really a vitally important ingredient in our industry….The emphasis is on how to “manage creativity” rather than how to manage basic production which used to be so important a few years ago.”


Supporting this thought Packard looks at some employment statistics – “Since 1947, the industrial output has nearly doubled. During this period, the number of productive people—the so-called blue collar workers—has dropped slightly, from about 13 million to 12 million. At the same time, the number of scientists and engineers in the country has doubled. So you can see that it’s not only a situation in our own industry but in industry at large where there is more scientific manpower and more creativity. Meanwhile, the old concept of materials and labor efficiency has become less important.”


Packard sees the ever expanding government-supported market as leveling off and

Therefore “…we are all going to have to work harder at finding new products and new markets. The solution is here and not in getting better supports from Washington or in other ways.”


Packard describes how every product that they have introduced has gone through the same sales cycle – sales rising for a few years and then leveling off. He emphasizes that “…had we not, in fact, brought out new products year after year, our company would not have grown the way it has grown. Our growth has been typical of the entire electronics industry, to a greater or lesser degree, and we are faced now, I think, as an industry with the problem of how to continue new product generation. The industry is leveling off and if we are going to move ahead, we must find ways to develop new products with creativity and innovation which will fit new markets.”


Packard moves on to steps in implementing a product program. “Of course, the most important decision to be made in any new product program is “what are you going to develop?” If you start off developing the wrong thing, obviously, you are spinning your wheels. So we have tried to find ways of evaluating new product projects to determine whether the ones we undertake are the best of all possible projects or whether there are others which might be better. In order to do this we went back and looked at what had been the result of our average decisions and we found that, by applying a measure determined by adding up the dollars it cost us to develop a new product and relating that to the product the product produced over a five year period, we cold establish a ratio. In other words, if this product produces $5 of profit for every $1 spent on it, it was a pretty good thing. If it only produced $1 of profit, it was less attractive. So by analyzing what we had done in the past, we could teach our division engineers and people in smaller groups in the organization to make the right kind of decisions. “


After describing this technique Packard goes on to say that results turned out to be questionable because judgement entered in when forecasting development cost and profits; and by manipulating these figures they found that divisions were all able to forecast they would meet whatever goal management had set, be 20% growth per year or whatever.


“Well, I think I ought to say that some of the professional management techniques are really not very effective in this business of nurturing creativity and developing and trying to do a better job. It certainly is partly because judgment is necessary. Also, I think it’s because a good deal of the traditional management practice we are all used to has been brought about as a result of things that really have had very little relationship to the kinds of problems we are facing today. Now, management at large is based to a large degree on military tradition. You get the thing organized. You assign responsibility. You have everybody lined up in a chain-of-command, and this works just fine. That is , if you want to get a certain number of people doing something that is fairly routine….It has been a very authoritarian thing, and this basic concept of assignments of authority and responsibility and the division of labor have their place, of course. They make the job somewhat more efficient. But they don’’ seem to be the way to get at this question of how you are going to move ahead when ideas and creativity and new products are the most important ingredients for the future.


“One of the approaches which I think has a good deal of merit—and I think more people are coming to this view—is the general concept of management by objective. That is, instead of trying to have everything organized down to the last detail, you try and get everybody working toward the some objective in an area of freedom so they can use their judgment and imagination. This obviously places emphasis on ideas and ideas don’t generally come from groups of people or from organizational patterns—they come from individuals. The problem is how do you develop an environment in which individuals can be creative, and how do you identify and evaluate these ideas when they are brought to the front. I believe that you have to put a good deal of thought to your organizational structure in order to provide this environment.


“Another thing characteristic of people who are creative is that they tend to be dissatisfied—they tend to be unsettled. To put it another way, they just don’t fit into the conventional organizational structure.”


“We have been very fortunate in our particular business in that our products have gone to customers who in turn are knowledgeable about electronics. The electronic engineer is typically a customer for our products and we have a lot of electronic engineers in our own organization. So we have got a pretty good built-in market evaluation capability there. If we come up with a new product and a lot of our engineers think it is going to be a world beater, the chances are pretty good that all the engineers in our customers’ shops will think likewise.”


Packard tells of HP’s acquisition of the Sanborn Company…”trying to find ways to expand our product line into fields which are not closely related to the nation’s military program, hopefully to provide a broader base and greater stability….rather than expecting the government to bail us out, we are going to have to find solutions ourselves.


“In the case of our own company, we are divided into small divisions. We try and keep the company broken down into groups of five or six hundred. Our best performing divisions in general are those which are managed by people who are restless; who are innovators; who don’t fit the typical management pattern, who are not the most orderly and certainly who are not conformists. We have a time getting them to follow company policy. I can get mad at them until I look at their performance and realize we had better put up with this. Conversely, we have men who are pretty good in traditional management techniques. Now you would like to have both, and I think this shows up in the experience of many young companies which get started on a creative idea and then find that they do have to do a number of things in a straight-forward, orderly manner and that the traditional concepts of management are indeed important. So I don’t want to leave the impression that you can do things in an off-the-cuff manner…but I do think we need to work for a little balance.”


Packard moves on to talk about management’s involvement in activities outside the company; in the community. “In recent years, management people have become much more interested in participating in the society outside their own company, contributing to the community at large, and thinking deeply about social problems relating to their business., This has led them to an ever-greater awareness that people are important and need to be recognized as people…that an environment needs to be generated to provide the right kind of a climate for them as individuals rather than as mere additional manpower. I think that there is a good deal of maturity in the present-day approach to labor relations, both among union leaders and business leaders.“


“I am particularly struck as I think about this matter by an experience I had about fifteen years ago. I went to a conference at which we were talking about personnel problems and I posed the proposition that I thought we needed to think a little bit more about some of these human factors rather than merely how to make a profit for our stock holders. Just about every person in this conference jumped on me and they said anybody who thinks about anything except making the maximum profit for the stockholders has no place on a management team. It is quite interesting for me to recall that just about six months ago I attended a meeting in Chicago of the Committee for Economic Development at which some of the top business management people in the country were in attendance. We spent three days talking about how management and business could contribute to society at large, and not once during the entire meeting did anybody talk about this question of how important profits are. This isn’t to say that profits are not important, because, of course, you can’t run a business without them, but there have been distinct trends toward recognizing these broader responsibilities.


“We have done some things in our own company toward this end. We have tried to develop an enlightened personnel program…But we have also tried to encourage our people to take part in the community affairs.”


Packard then talks about the general business climate in California saying that “things are not always as attractive here as they are in other parts of the country. If there is going to be more competition for such military and space business as is available, it is going to be more important that we be competitive in the future than in the past. I think we have a much bigger job in getting the full support of our Congressmen. I think in final analysis our efficiency is going to be pretty important.


“Packard gives some statistics covering the last twenty years in California: population up 123%, state government expenditures up 1000%, taxes up 650%. “Now some of this expenditure, of course, was occasioned by a need to catch up with things that were left undone during the war, so you might say you should not go back to 1945. Supposing you go back to 1951. Since then the population has grown 85% and state expenditures are up 260%.” Packard tells of meeting with industrial people from the Bay Area, representing 40,000 employees, all of whom said “they were going to minimize their expansion in California and expand outside wherever they could. The interesting thing was that, although specific levels of taxation were important, everyone felt it was the attitude of the state government which was as significant as anything.


“Packard says they drew up a “comparison between a hypothetical unit operating in California and one operating in Colorado….We made some general definitions of a unit employing about 500 people, carrying about $1,700,000 in inventory, something like $1,000,000 in machinery and equipment, $2,000,000 in buildings and about $400,000 in sales subject to sales tax, and an annual sales volume in the neighborhood of $10,000,000.


“State unemployment taxes cost $46,000 more a year in California than in Colorado….Here in California, industry is called on to support both the people they employ and to support those they are unable to employ, so to speak. I Colorado, industry is asked to support the people they employ and the general taxpayer is asked to support the unemployed….Other taxes are higher in almost every respect. I won’t go through the details but it turns out that the savings in Colorado are somewhere in the neighborhood of $80,000 to $100,000, and while this is not a decisive figure, it can make a difference.”


“We talk about why there should be any incentive to move out of California. I think we have some pretty important things to face up to and must ask ourselves what we can do about them. The things WEMA is already doing are important. It is important that we do what we can to elect people to the state legislature or state government wherever possible who believe in fiscal responsibility because if we continue to spend money on everybody for everything, those of us who are in productive areas of industry are just going to have to pay the bill.”


Packard turns to military spending in the area which means “We are going to be under more pressure because virtually all of us depend to a large degree on military spending. Frankly, I don’t really think we are going to get very much benefit from political action in Washington. In fact, I think it’s going to be more difficult to keep our share of business here in California simply because there is less business to go around. Other states are working hard and there is more emphasis on low cost. These things are going to make it much more difficult here in the future to do as well as we have done in the past.


“On the other hand, we have, I think, one of the greatest assets of the entire country and that is in terms of our scientific and technologically trained people. As I see it, the success we each have in the future is not going to depend on how much pressure we can get in Washington or any charity from there, but rather on how well we are going to be able to manage our own affairs in taking full advantage of the talent we have and at the same time doing what we can to improve the economic climate here in the state. I think if we concentrate on these two things, we will have a pretty good chance of making the future a continuation of the very exciting times we have had in the past years.”


8/28/64, Letter to Packard, from  L. L. Thompson of Aerojet saying they had reviewed his qualifications, but had no opening at the time.

10/8/64, Letter to Packard from very embarrassed S. M. Stroud apologizing for the employment letter. Seems Packard’s bio relative the forthcoming dinner speech got into the wrong pile.

9/1/64, Memo from Mike Talbert of Neely Enterprises to Margaret Paull saying the place for the Aerojet Management Club meeting/dinner has been changed.

9/3/64, Letter to Packard from Stan Stroud of Aerojet thanking Packard for agreeing to speak to their group.

9/17/64, Letter to Packard from Frank H. Coyne, Jr. thanking him for speaking to the Harvard Club on September 16th.

9/17/64, Letter to Packard from Peter Wallace thanking him for speaking to the Harvard Club.

9/23/64, Flyer, announcing Packard’s talk to WEMA on September 23.

9/25/64, Letter to Packard from H. M. Bailey, Thanking him for speaking to WEMA members.

October 1964, copy of The Westerner,  a WEMA publication.




Box 2, Folder 64 – General Speeches


October 16, 1964, The Electronic Industry, 1964, The Business Council, Hot Springs, Virginia


10/16/64, Typewritten copy of the text of this talk. Packard was a member of a panel and this is a straight-forward description of the industry; what they make, their growth rate, and future prospects.


Packard says that the compared to other major industries Electronics is a young industry – just four decades old. He defines it as “having to do with devices utilizing the flow of electrons in vacuum or in semi-conductors – but the boundaries of the electronic industry are not precise. It overlaps into nearly a score of the Department of Commerce Standard Industrial classifications. Many products of the electronic industry are incorporated into other products – both within the industry and also products of other industries. This makes it difficult to develop accurate statistics on the industry. But accepting these uncertainties electronics can be considered as a 17 billion dollar industry in 1964. This would make it about the seventh largest manufacturing industry in the United States, after Food, Transportation Equipment, Petroleum, Chemicals, primary and fabricated Metals, and Machinery.


“Nearly 900,000 people are employed, and it is important to note that about 135,000 of these are scientists and engineers. This means that innovation is perhaps the industry’s most important product. Many of the industry’s products are devices which were unknown twenty-five years ago. Some of them were thought then to have been impossible to develop or make, and of course, many had not even been thought of at all. The industry generates new business firms at a high rate, because a man with a new idea and only a few dollars is often all that is needed.


“The growth of the industry has been very rapid since 1950. The growth was accelerated by the Korean War, followed by a great push to strengthen our strategic military capability with missiles, a massive air defense system, and finally the space program. There has been a slow-down in the rate of growth since 1962. The figures are as follows:


Growth rate for industry, 1958-1962   –   13% per year

Growth rate for industry,  1962-1963  –     9% per year

Estimated growth rate for 1964           –     about 5%


Packard then discusses the three separate markets that make up the industry. “The largest market is to the Federal Government. In 1964 this market will account for about 9.9 billion dollars worth of products. This is nearly 60% of the industry’s total output, and this market will grow about 4% this year. It is composed as follows:

1964 Sales                   1963 Sales

Dept. of Defense                    $8.0 Billion                 $8.1 Billion

NASA                                     $1.7 Billion                 $1.2 Billion                             FAA                                        $160 Million               $160 Million

AEC                                        $40 Million                 $40 Million”


“The changes in this market have caused some problems for the industry during the past two years. The increase in spending from the space program has had a large portion of  Research and Development, with a small amount of hardware  production. The reduction in the Department of Defense spending has come from a shift from strategic to tactical weapons. This shift has resulted in a cancellation of some programs, and has been accompanied by changes in procurement policy. ?These changes have put pressure on profits for the industry in 1963, although there are sign of improvement this year.


“A sample of profits for a representative cross-section of the industry shows the following results:


Year                                         1962                1963                1964*


Profits as % of sales        $     4.8%                4.4%                4.6%

*results reported as of 10/4/64.”


Packard says that some firms have been hit hard by these changes. “California is an area where cutbacks have affected the economy. Because of the reduction of employment in electronics and other defense related industries, there has been no appreciable increase in industrial employment in the State for the past two years. This is against about a 7% annual increase in the total labor force.”


Going on to the second largest market Packard says this “is classified generally as an Industrial Market. It will account for about $4.5 billion of sales in 1964. This is something over 25% of the market, and will be about 12% ahead of last year. The industrial market breaks down to the following categories:


Estimated 1964 Sales              Growth Rate


Computers and related equipment      $1.8 Billion                             15%


Communication equipment                    1.2 Billion                            10 %


Test and Measuring equipment              600 Million                         10%


Industrial controls                                   400 Million                         15%


Medical equipment                                  200 Million                        no change


Miscellaneous                                           300 Million”                       —


“The third market, and the pioneer for the industry, is Consumer Electronics. In 1964 this market is expected to contribute about $2.6 Billion in sales, and will be about 6% ahead of last year. This market breaks down about as follows:

Estimated 1964 Sales              Growth Rate


TV Sets                                                           $1 Billion                                3%

(Of this Color TV

will produce a volume

of about $430 Million –

up from $250 Million a year


Phonographs                                                   $400 Million                           –


Radio Sets                                                       $400 Million                           –

AM and FM  $200 Million

Auto  Radios $200 Million                                                                         5%


Records and Tapes                                         $300 Million                          12%


Misc. Tape Recorders,                                     $500 Million                         10%

Electronic Organs, etc”.


“It is important to note the large growth in Color TV sets this year. This growth is expected to continue for the next year or two. Auto radios are up because of the good automobile market this year, but will directly follow the market. Tape recorders, electronic organs and miscellaneous consumer devices continue to grow in volume.


“The component market deserves special comment because it is large, $4.5 Billion estimated for 1964, but also because most of the components are consumed by the industry, about $600 Million only going outside as replacement parts, and thus adding to the industry total sales. This market breaks down as follows:


Estimated 1964 Sales              Growth Rate


Electronic Tubes                     $ 800 Million                          no change


Semi-Conductor Devices           600 Million                          6%


Connectors                                  300 Million                         10%


Capacitors                                   350 Million                         6%


Resistors                                     350 Million                         6%


“The balance of this market includes a wide range of devices used by the industry.


“Vacuum tubes continue to be the largest component market but the demand for these has leveled off. Transistors and other semi-conductor devices are growing rapidly in volume, but pressure on prices has been strong so that the dollar growth for this market is not as large as the growth in unit volume.


Packard talks a bit about Micro-miniature devices-…”devices utilizing a large number of active semi-conductor devices and passive elements in one package…..

These devices are expected to account for over $400 Million in sales in 1964, double the 1963 volume, and this market should grow rapidly in the future, replacing some of the demand for more conventional components.


“In general, the industry is going well after having faced some changes in the guying habits of its major customer over the past two years. Despite much talk about diversification into non-military fields, the military market will continue to be the largest for some time to come. This country still needs many better weapons and military devices than it now has….The most realistic estimates of this situation seem to indicate there is not likely to be much change either way in the level of Federal expenditures for the next year or two. Over the long range they are more likely to continue upward..


“In the industrial market the future of the industry will depend almost entirely on its ability to create new products. There is a broadening base of technology to build on, and an expanding market as well. In this area electronics is certain to continue to grow much faster than the economy as a whole.


“In the consumer field new innovations may contribute to growth in the market, but there are no obvious break-throughs on the horizon. This market will probably have about the same characteristics as the consumer market for other industries – as it has had in the past.


“In summary, although the industry has seen some changes during the past two years, it has weathered them well. Innovation has been the ingredient which has determined the course of the industry in the past – innovation will continue to do so to the future. The industry still looks to the future with the optimism of its youth.”


10/16/64, typewritten draft of the above speech with many handwritten cotes by Packard


10/16/64, Draft of above speech handwritten by Packard.


10/16/64, Several sheets of reference material used by Packard for the above speech.


10/22/64, Letter to Packard from F. R. Kappel, Chairman, Business Council, thanking him for his talk.



Box 2, Folder 65 – General Speeches


December 1, 1964, Management’s Expanding Responsibilities, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York City.


12/1/64, Typewritten copy of Packard’s talk to the ASME.


Packard says that “This meeting has special significance for me because I am an engineer by training, and have been actively working at management for over two decades….It is encouraging to note that the number of managers with engineering training is increasing rapidly….This is as it should be in our contemporary world which is so broadly based on technology.”


“In the beginning of its development as a specialized activity management was primarily concerned with increasing the operating efficiency of the enterprises with which it was involved….early practitioners were often called efficiency experts.


“As management has developed,…it has become clear that the profession has responsibilities beyond improving the operating efficiency of the enterprises being managed. I want to explore with you today some of these broader areas where management has the opportunity of making important contributions to the welfare of society.“


Packard says that “Many of the [management] concepts we use today had their origins in early governmental and military organizations. Beginning in the middle ages the Church has developed some very effective management techniques, and these have been influential in helping the Church to extend its influence over wide areas of the world.”


“…it has been in the environment of the expanding complex industrial economy that management has become a full grown profession. Much of the leadership for this development has come from America.”


“The growth of Management into an effective and important profession has been important factor in the economic progress of the twentieth century.


“As the management profession has grown and made these important contributions to our welfare, it has also achieved a position of great influence. Professional managers, not the investors nor the financial people, are now in direct control of a large majority of the business and industrial resources of this country. In these positions they have far more direct and important influence over the 71 million job holders of the country than do the Union  leaders. By their actions in their day-to-day management affairs, and because these actions affect many people, they hold substantial power of influence over society at large.”


“It is a position of tremendous influence and responsibility, and it should be recognized as such by every member of the management profession.


“Management has, in fact, been slow to recognize and accept this position of influence.


“Since the early years of scientific management, the major emphasis has been on the economic efficiency of the unit involved. Considerable attention has been given to human relations over the years, and much has been learned about this subject, but this has been done generally in an attempt to increase efficiency. The underlying philosophy has been that if the manager is able to produce goods and services which the market called for, and produce them at a profit, his responsibility to society has been discharged well. No one will deny that this is indeed the most important responsibility of a manager, for if he fails in this he is hardly in a position to do anything else. In the last few decades the management profession is beginning to realize that it does indeed have responsibilities beyond the achievement of economic efficiency. Fortunately, many management people have finally recognized that they do owe something to their employees beyond an hourly wage for work performed, and that they and their business firms are somehow involved in the environment created around their affairs by the society at large.


“The most evident understanding of management’s broader responsibility has come about in employee relations. The change in attitude was forced by the Unions and the Government, but there is ample evidence, I believe, that the management profession has become self-enlightened in the matter. Employees are by now well recognized as human beings, not just as a commodity to be bought on the open market. Good working conditions, safety, sickness benefits, provisions for retirement income, and many other considerations for employees, are now counted high on the list.”


“Managers have, in recent years taken an active interest in many affairs outside the confines of their business enterprises. Interest and activity in the local community has been increasing at a healthy rate….now nearly every community in America is better in some way because professional management has considered the local environment to be important.


“This interest has extended far beyond financial support for community projects. It has included active participation by business people in local governmental bodies, school boards, and other such groups. These participants are a benefit to the community because of their professional skills, and in such participation they have further extended their influence.


“In recent years professional management people have given a helping hand to American education. They divert millions of dollars annually  from the resources that control to schools, colleges, and universities throughout the country….Today professional managers are budgeting financial contributions to colleges and universities because thy believe that strong educational institutions are necessary for the welfare of the society in which their business firms operate.


“They expect to increase the flow of talented, educated young men and women to their companies. They hope their companies will benefit from the research programs at the universities. Underlying these specific expectations is the belief that strong, independent educational institutions are essential to the survival of a free society.


“These are just a few examples of how professional management in our free enterprise society is beginning to recognize that it has a great stake in the character of the society of which it is a part, that it can and should have a major role in determining what kind of society that will be.”


Packard points out that “Management as an important activity is not limited to a free enterprise or capitalist economy by any means. The manager is indispensible [sic] in a socialist or communist society as well….What, then makes management in a free society different? Management freedom allows the manager to make decisions and take objective actions based on his knowledge. He is not just a lieutenant executing orders. A business enterprise operating in the free market provides the best opportunity to develop and apply management judgement, and the best evaluation of performance, for in the end only performance counts. The profit system is the best motivation we have been able to devise. From this freedom comes a great diversity of enterprises, large and small, specialized and broad, and if any do not do their job well, another one will grow which will. Freedom generates diversity, and in diversity there is great strength.


“It is the very essence of a profession that its members have the freedom to apply their knowledge and their skills as they alone think best. Otherwise, they are not professionals, they are technicians. Freedom is essential to the survival of any profession, and management is no exception.”


“Although we can agree that American management has performed well, that freedom is essential for good management performance, we all know that this freedom is being gradually eroded. Government has constrained management action in many ways. Strong groups have grown up, particularly Unions, which have been successful in limiting management freedom, and are pushing further in this direction. Why has this come about in face of the fact that in providing goods and services for our society this profession has done a magnificent job in our free enterprise economy? I believe the answer is very simple and obvious. An institution, and institution, will survive only in a way in which it fulfills or helps to fulfill the total needs of society. The needs of society, any society, are not adequately met with more and better products at lower prices alone. If management is to survive as a profession in a free society, it must look further to its responsibilities. It must do more to insure that the economic units which it controls not only fulfill the material needs, more and better products at lower prices, but also that these units had better meet some of the other needs and aspirations of society. Whether it does so or not may determine whether we will even have a free society in the future.


“Fortunately, some progress has already been made. There is much more to do, and I can hope today only to give you a few suggestions.


“One of the most pressing problems in recent years that of unemployment in an otherwise healthy economy. With our expanding population the problem is certain to become more serious. While there is some disagreement about the figures, about the number of employable people who are unemployed, there are two groups which are very important.


“The first group is the young people. These young people who are unable to find jobs are important for our future, and there are too many of them. Unless our free enterprise economy finds ways to meet their needs and aspirations, they will pose a serious threat to its survival. There are already signs of unrest which could grow to serious proportions.


“The second group consists of those who have been displaced by the changing economy. Automation has generated unemployment for people with limited skills, even though it may have created more new jobs than it destroyed old.


Packard describes the pressures for government to solve these problems: “make work” projects, mandatory double pay for overtime, or shorter working hours. “If the management profession fails to accept a major responsibility for this problem, it is bound to result in further loss of management freedom.


“What, then, are proper areas for the profession to take action? One way is for managers to take a more active role in the education and retraining of these groups of unemployed people. We know there are many jobs available. How many of these unemployed youth and displaced workers would be already out of the ranks of the unemployed if only they had adequate education and training. Who should know better what this education and training should be, and how to accomplish it, than the people whose job it is to direct people in useful and productive activities. Here, then, is one challenge which the profession must accept with more dedication.


“The problem of Civil Rights is, in addition to other things, a special case of the unemployed. It is certainly preferable that equal employment opportunity be insured by enlightened management, rather than by governmental edict or social pressure. Some management freedom has already been lost by a lack of understanding and action. It is time all management people bring the strength of their knowledge and their position of influence to bear on these troubles.


“A commitment to, and an involvement in, the educational activities of our society is certainly a proper role for the management profession. This should involve continuing allocation of financial support from the economic resources of business concerns. It should involve participation of management people with those responsible for both government supported and privately supported educational activities, in whatever ways as may be effective.


“Management must be more concerned about the proper utilization of people in our society as a whole, as well as the proper utilization of people in their individual enterprises.”


“To the extent management influence and management action contribute to economic stability, management freedom in the future will be enhanced.”


Packard then looks to the future saying that “We cannot possibly meet the needs of the future without growth, and we need more economic growth than we have in the past. This poses a very serious challenge for management.”


Packard feels we no doubt will be able to fulfill the material needs without increasing the number of working people – maybe need even less. However, he sees a problem with “the millions of people in the rest of the world who do not have what they need. It seems unlikely that these needs can be met from the productive resources of America except to a limited extent, and then only as a catalyst to help other people produce what they need themselves “


“The horizons of management cannot be limited to the boundaries of the free Western World. If the industrialized countries do not have the responsibility to supply all of the material needs of the undeveloped world, they do have the responsibility of helping them supply their own needs.


“Financial and material help to undeveloped countries has not been very effective

This is because it takes more than money and materials to produce a viable economy. It takes management capability, as well. Here, then, is another proper and most important challenge for the management profession. Assistance to people in undeveloped areas of the world, to obtain the knowledge and skills of management, will probably contribute as much to their economic welfare as any other act of assistance which could be devised.


“Management has indeed grown into a great profession. Operating in the environment of the free enterprise economy it has brought forth the largest and most impressive array of goods and services the world has ever seen. The profession has already begun to direct its attention to may of the other needs and aspirations of society. It has revolutionized the life of the working man, reducing his drudgery, and increasing his leisure and security. Management people have contributed to the progress of the communities which they direct. Education is better because of the interest and involvement of professional management people. A good start has been made in providing a foundation for a management profession in the developing countries.


“We can all be pleased with and proud of the progress which has been made since the early days of the ‘efficiency expert’. These are the achievements of management in an environment of freedom. If we can preserve this environment of freedom, the opportunities for professional management are unlimited.”



6/65, Copy of printed text of Packard’s speech. From Mechanical Engineering publication.

3/4/64, Letter to Packard from Charles M. Merrick, Department of Industrial Engineering, Lafayette College, asking if Packard would be willing to speak to the ASME winter meeting in NYC.

3/18/64, Copy of letter from Packard to Charles M. Merrick saying he would be pleased to be asked to speak.

3/25/64, Letter to Packard from Charles M Merrick thinking Packard for his willingness to speak and saying the invitation will be forthcoming from the Meetings Committee.

3/27/64, Letter to Packard from James C. Skinner confirming Packard’s participation as speaker.

4/1/64, Letter to Charles M. Merrick from Margaret Paull sending biographical data.

4/3/64, Letter to Margaret Paull from Charles M. Merrick thanking her for biographical material on Packard.

4/10/64, Letter to Packard from Charles M. Merrick giving information on previous speakers.

4/13/64, Letter to Packard from T. S. Fetter, Jr. extending the formal invitation to speak to the ASME on December 1, 1964.

4/21/64, Copy of letter to T. S. Fetter, Jr. from Packard sending formal acceptance of the invitation to speak.

6/23/64, Letter to Packard from Charles M Merrick offering assistance on planning Packard’s talk.

7/2/64, Letter from Packard to Charles M. Merrick thanking him for his offer of assistance.

7/20/64, Letter to Packard from A. Bruce Conlin, Jr. asking for information on Packard’s talk for advance publicity purposes.

11/9/64, Letter to Packard from Marvin D. Frankel asking for an advance copy of Packard’s talk.

11/20/64, Copy of letter to Marvin D. Frankel from Margaret Paull sending a summary of Packard’s intended talk. The summary is attached.

11/18/64, Letter to Packard from Donald E. Farr asking for advance information of Packard’s talk.

11/20/64, Letter to Donald E. Farr from Margaret Paull sending requested data.

12/4/64, Letter to Packard from Russell M. H. Berg, Assistant Advertising Manager of Scientific American magazine requesting two copies of Packard’s talk.

12/8/64, Copy of letter to Russell M. H. Berg sending the requested copies.

12/8/64, Letter to Packard from N. A. Moerman  saying he has noted some shortcomings among managers.

12/9/64, Letter to Packard from David G. Barry requesting a copy of Packard’s talk.

12/11/64, Letter to Packard from Donald E. Farr of ASME thanking him for his presentation and expressing regret for such a small audience.

12/15/64, Letter to Packard from D. G. Currin requesting a copy of Packard’s talk.

12/18/64,  Letter to Packard from O. B. Schier, II ASME thanking him for his participation.

Box 1, Folder 23 – HP Management


January 10, 1964, Management Conference, Monterey


1/10/64, Typewritten address by Dave Packard.

Packard says we are “Here to look at our company from an overall point of view.

…we are one company and must have common objectives.”


“The ultimate goal of everyone here in this room tonight is to see that the entire company is successful, not just that your own area of responsibility is successful.”


Packard expresses disappointment with 1963 results.

“The most important problem we have is to develop a more effective working relationship between groups, to combine our strength so that clearly we can be stronger together.”


He asks managers to look at everything they have been doing and ask themselves two questions:

1. Will this maximize the performance of my division or area of responsibility?

2. Will this maximize the performance of the entire corporate family?


Packard says the two most important factors that define the performance of HP are:

1. Adequate profits

2. Satisfactory growth


He sees the challenge for 1964 as improving profit performance and the rate of growth. And “Because in the long run it will be easier to maintain good margins with new products and new markets, and because this is probably the only way we can insure growth for the future, we plan to spend most of our time here this weekend discussing this aspect of our affairs.”


He points to the excellent record of some of the organizations and concludes if everyone did as well “we would turn in a whale of a job.”


“I don’t see why we should settle for less,” he says.


Packard shows several slides reflecting performance. He says he will not propose detailed cost reductions, but “it should not be impossible to cut at least 1 million dollars off our costs before taxes.”


Packard feels increasing sales is more important in the long run and says most of the time at the conference will be spent on this problem. He gives examples of sales levels that were good and some that were not what they should be. “The job is to make all of our new product projects turn out as well as some of these have done…it will take hard work and good judgment, but it can be done!”

The folder contains an agenda and supporting papers.

1965 – Packard Speeches

Box 2, Folder 65 – General Speeches              

9/22/65, Card from Robert M Reese of U. S. Department of Commerce requesting a copy of Packard’s talk to the ASME.

Box 2, Folder 66 – General Speeches


May 11, 1965, Breakfast talk to Menlo School and College, students and faculty of School of Business, Menlo Park, CA


5/11/65, Handwritten outline by Packard of talk he plans to give. No complete text.


1.   Impression of U.S. prosperity and industrial strength from trip around country.  Contrast with pessimistic view from reading headlines and letters to editor, particularly in local papers and student papers such as Stanford Daily.


  1. As students of business you should be impressed with figures


GNP 1960 – 500 [billion?]

1964 – 625

1965 – Average above 650

1975 – 1980 above 1000


England 90

France 85

Russia 350-375


Longest period of growth with exception of World War II.


Personal income 1960 –  400 [million?]

1964 –  500 +25%


Prices                  1957-1959 = 100

Wholesale        1964 – 99.5%

Consumer        1964 – 109%

Cost of Living


Services – 115%

Food      – 107%

Other     –  105%


Savings and liquid assets

1960 – 400 billion

1964 – 500 billion


Economic Advisors of Business Council – 1965 continue strong


Gordon Aelsley [?] Chamber of Economic Advisors – 1965 strong


New records in almost every area

Automobile – new high

Appliances – +20% gains

Color TV – sales over 2 million

Housing – possibly down


Balance of payments

Complex problem

Goods and services – 8 billion

Other transactions –  11 billion

Net                         approximately 3 billion


Build up of dollars more than adequate to finance normal world trade.



U.S. economy healthy and competitive, comparison with five years ago.

Airlines  –  PAA, TWA

Railroads  –  employment down, profit up

Steel Industry – innovation



Consumer Products – up 20%

Transistor radios from Japan – now American competitive

Trends in business management

R & D emphasis on innovation

HP example

Better products

Automation and labor efficiency


Maturity in Business/Labor /Government relationships

Business management responsibility to employees and public at large not just to stockholders.

Long range planning


Cooperation with government

Great change since Kennedy, Walter Heller


Government has recognized that small enterprise earnings and profits are necessary for a healthy economy

Tax reduction and reform investment credit and depreciated new capital equipment.


1960 –  35 billion

1965 – 50 billion

1963 –1965 gone from 38 to 50 billion


Consumer purchasing power is important. Individual tax reduction, wages, and productivity must be kept in balance. Automobile settlement excessive. Others about in line.


Business community is learning that problems of a complex economy are complex and simple solutions will not suffice.


Balanced budget not sole determinant of healthy of healthy economy. Moderate deficits manageable in growing economy.


Civil rights.

Business has made great contribution – jobs and education will determine outcome – . not voting rights – equality cannot be legislated, but equality of opportunity can be provided by joint efforts of business government and community at large.


Despite troubles of world you are entering the greatest opportunity to make contribution to welfare of the world. Our private enterprise system is hope of world. I wish you well.”


Packard wrote out another page marked ”fill in if time” on which he outlined a  profile of managers:


“What you should be if you want to be a key business executive.

Scientific American


% Average                   %Population


Episcopalian   30                                            3

Politics                                    % Republican              more than 1900

Railroads                     70%

Public Util.                  71                    less than 1900

Industrial                     77                    same as 1900

Largest                        75                    more than 1900

Smallest                       79                    more than 1900

Father’s profession

Lawyer                        5.1%                1950 largest

Clergyman                   6.2                   1900 largest


Family status

Poor                            12%

Medium                      51

Wealthy                      36

College education


5/11/65,  Typewritten page of statistics with some handwritten notes by Packard,

about US balance of payments

3/18/65, Letter to Packard from William E. Kratt, President Menlo School and College, asking Packard would speak to students at breakfast meeting.

4/19/65, Letter to Packard from Bruce Carr Smith of Menlo College, thanking him for agreeing to speak at their breakfast.

5/14/65, Letter to Packard from Robert R. Gros, complimenting him on his talk

5/17,65,  Letter to Packard from Bruce Carr Smith thanking him for participating.

5/20/65, Letter to Packard from William E. Kratt, thanking him for participating.




Box 2, Folder 67 –  General Speeches


May 17, 1965, Business Management and Social Responsibility, Children’s Home Society of California, Palo Alto, CA

5/17/65, Typewritten copy of the text of this speech.

Packard the members of this society on their “valuable contribution” of having placed 1273 children for adoption in 1964,  and segues into a discussion of the contribution of private organizations saying “Private endeavors for the benefit of society have a long and honorable tradition in the history of the Western world. Our earliest, and some of our most distinguished, educational institutions began from – and still depend on – private initiative.


“Many other important institutions devoted to the well-being of people were founded, as was yours, because an individual was concerned about the welfare of his fellow citizens.


Packard talks of  how the government has taken over many segments of social welfare and how “There has evolved over the years in the United States, a unique blending of private and government efforts..


“Much of the involvement of the government has come about as a result of the magnitude of the job to be accomplished. Education, for example, is an area so comprehensive and complex that it is hard to imagine the system minus the governmental role.


“And yet, we find private schools and universities still holding positions of great importance. They have a unique position of leadership because they can concentrate on quality – they have the freedom and flexibility to nurture innovation – they can institute special programs, devote individual attention to outstanding students, and often develop areas of excellence which are difficult – or impossible – for public supported institutions to match.


Packard hastens to say that public “are doing a good job, too. Having been closely involved with the field of education over the past number of years, I am convinced that our pluralistic approach has given us educational opportunities for our young people far superior to those found anywhere else in the world.”


While Packard feels “there are many…areas of our society where government agencies look to private organizations for leadership and standards of excellence.


“But unfortunately, during the past few years we have seen a growing number of critics of private endeavor. We have been bombarded with books such as “The Hidden Persuaders,” “The Organization Man,” The Status Seekers and Life in the Crystal Palace,” just to name a few. These books, and others, are focusing their attention on the business community -–but the private charitable organization is under attack as well.


“To give a recent example, in his 1964 annual report of the Carnegie Corporation, John Gardner outlines very well the nature of some of these current threats to private charity. The attack, as he points out, is aimed at the tax deductibility of charitable contributions, and at the very existence of charitable foundations – on which much of our private social benefits depend.


“The argument goes that because tax money actually belongs to the government, when an individual receives a tax deduction for his gift, he is in fact giving away the government’s money, not his own.”


“Essentially, the same arguments are used against private foundations. They insist that the wealth an individual is able to accumulate [sic] in his lifetime should not be used for purposes he selects, such as the establishment of a charitable foundation. This money, too, they say, belongs to the government.”


And Packard warns that “the institutions of private charity and private enterprise are under unnecessary attack, and vigilance is required for survival.


“ However, it is not necessary to use common dangers to support the proposition that private charity has much in common with the private business community. There are enough common goals and ideals to do that.


“John Gardner used the words “private initiative for the common good” to define the private charity, and I believe that it is as good a definition as I have ever heard to also define the motives and aspirations of the modern business manager.”


Packard says he feels the word “modern” is appropriate because he sees that “there has been a great change in the business manager profession over recent decades. He recalls a discussion with some business people 15-20 years previously “when the prevailing view was that the primary objective of the management function was to make a profit. Employee relations were directed toward maintaining production and profit, without regard for the social consequences. The concept that labor was a commodity to be bought and sold on the open market prevailed. Involvement in community or public affairs was measured in terms of the specific benefits it would buy. “Caveat emptor” still persisted in dealing with customers….the concept of “what’s good for business is good for the country” still prevailed to a large degree.”


However, Packard says that “There were, during these years, business managers who felt differently about their responsibilities. They had recognized, and honored, the view that every employee is a human being – that he has his aspirations, his home, and his family – and that in making his contribution to his job he deserved consideration beyond the mechanical payment of an hourly or daily wage. Had more managers realized this sooner, there would have been little need for the unions to take up the battle in behalf of the worker of that day.


“Some managers were also beginning to recognize that they had a broader responsibility to the communities in which their business were established than could be defined on a “quid pro quo” basis. They realized that their enterprises were an integral part of the society at large and that they did in fact have a responsibility to make sure their organizations were good corporate citizens.


“These same managers realized that they had a mandate to give their customers the best products, and the best services, that could be produced. They had come to the conclusion that the seller had a responsibility to make sure the buyer did not have to beware.”


Packard feels that since WWII “this new attitude has come to a high state of maturity. It has a strong effect on the people who make up the management profession today. It is beginning to become an accepted and expected philosophy by the general public.”


Today’s managers, Packard feels, “…are firm believers in, and standard bearers for, the free enterprise system, of course. They know they must manage their organizations to make a profit. But – and this is the crux of the management philosophy of our age – they look on profit as a measure of the contribution their organizations are making to society, and on free enterprise as the vehicle essential for achieving the social aspirations of all of the people.”


Packard compares economic progress in the U.S. since 1960 with that of other countries. “In the year of 1960, our U.S. gross national product …was about 500 billion dollars. In this year of 1965, the figure will be in excess of 650 billion dollars. This is an increase of 150 billion dollars in goods and services produced by the American free enterprise system in five years.


“The next largest economy in the free world today is that of West Germany, which will have a gross national product in 1965 of about 114 billion dollars. The West Germany economic system has performed the best of all of these other countries, and is the one most closely aligned with the American system, particularly with respect to the individual initiative and enthusiasm.


“Even so, as you can see, we have added to our economy an amount nearly one and one –half times as large as their total economy in just the past five years.


“France…will have a total economy in 1965 if around 86 billion dollars. We are adding this amount to our economy every three to four years..


“Great Britain has an economy only slightly larger than France. With a population about one-quarter that of the United States, they produce only about one-seventh the goods and services.


Packard describes “the sad plight of Great Britain….Here is a country which once had the strongest economy in the world. Her navies ruled the seas. Her products – the epitome of quality and value – were sought throughout the world. She was the champion for the free enterprise of business.


“Today, Great Britain is no longer competitive in world trade. The integrity of the pound is upheld only by the charity of her friends through the largest loans ever granted from the international monetary fund.


“The spirit of her people is broken. They enjoy a wage level about a quarter of that found in America. They can’t afford housing, so the government supplies it for them on a subsidized basis. They can’t afford medical care, so the government provides medicare. The whole country has forsaken free enterprise for socialism.


“There is a lesson here for us. We are being presented with the largest dose of public welfare ever received by any nation. The War of Poverty Commission has billions of dollars available to it to combat any local economic situation they can find, which might possibly improve the standard of living for a few people.


“The Administration seems convinced that private initiative in medical care is a failure, and that only the federal government can solve the problem.


“They are convinced that education needs federal support – and if you analyze the federal education bill you will find that they intend to give this support to education in every state whether it is needed or not.


“Under the present administration we are walking in some of the same footprints made by Great Britain. If we continue along this same path, it is bound to have the same results for us that it has had for them.”


“I firmly believe that free enterprise in social welfare is an absolute necessity to support free enterprise in business. Once social welfare becomes a government monopoly – as it is rapidly becoming – it is only a matter of time before we see it requires only another series of steps to put business under government monopoly. And then, we will be following the lead of Great Britain in moving from one of the world’s greatest economies to the position of a second-rate nation.


“But fortunately we are not there yet and to get back to the present economic situation, I would emphasize that in 1965 our gross national product will exceed the total of all the other countries of the free world combined..


“Estimates on the economies of Russia and China are hard to come by – but I have heard reports that Russia produces something in the neighborhood of 350 billion dollars.


“If we add up all the known free world economies, and the estimates for the communist-dominated portion of the world, it is within reason to say that the United States produces some 35 to 40 percent of the world’s economic strength – and all of this with some 7 percent of the world’s population.


“In light of these impressive figures, it is surprising that the image of the business manager remains so poor. At least one survey I have seen with the past few years indicates that industry generally is gaining on the government and labor in receiving a favorable vote of confidence by the public – but on the reverse side of the coin, business still holds a rather strong lead among those people who have an intense unfavorable attitude toward one of the three major categories of business, government and labor.”


“We in private industry, have much to do to improve the image others have of us – but the image is less important than the performance. Management has accomplished quite a bit already, and it is going in the right direction.


“Our philosophies are the same as yours. Our goals, by necessity, must be on a broader spectrum, but then collectively we are much larger, In dealing with the more all-encompassing segments of public welfare, we are not forgetting the individual private organizations such as yours that provide the day-by-day services that are so important to, and so thankfully received by the people of this country.

We will do all that we can to strengthen the public’s realization of the significance of the role played by private charitable organization.


“And, more important, the private business community will continue to help you and all of the other private charitable organizations in the task you have set for yourselves.


“For our future n the American society, and for that matter, in the world society, is closely interwoven with yours.


“Both are the essence of private initiative for the public good.”


3/28/65, Letter to Packard from Charlotte De Armond , with Children’s Home Society, expressing appreciation that he has indicated willingness to Annual Meeting speaker.

3/31/65, Letter to Packard from Charlotte De Armond asking for a title for his forthcoming speech.

4/6/65, Copy of letter from Packard to Charlotte De Armond giving the title as “Business Management and Social Responsibility.”

4/17/65, Text of a speech by Henry H. Fowler, Secretary of the Treasury. Marked for release to news papers April 17, 1965.

4/22/65, Publicity release announcing May 17 dinner with Packard as speaker.

5/27/65, Letter to Packard from Charlotte De Armond thanking him for speaking. Also saying she had sent copies to all their District Directors.

5/28/65, Letter to Packard from Harry Goodfriend, thanking him for speaking.

Also included are several fact sheets and other reference material.




Box 2, Folder 68 – General Speeches


May 31, 1965, Remarks honoring Frederick E. Terman, Stanford University Convocation.


5/31/65, Typewritten copy of this speech.


Packard says he appreciates the opportunity to honor Fred Terman, but saddened to see his career at Stanford come to an end. “He represents to me perhaps more than any other single individual what Stanford is and what Stanford has been.


“That he has in very large measure contributed to the ending of the old and the beginning of the new does not alleviate my concern. I am not at all sure the greatness Stanford is seeking for the future will in every way surpass the greatness of Fred Terman’s days at this University.”


Packard tells how he first became acquainted with Professor Terman. “Among my hobbies was Amateur Radio and I spent a spare hour now and then in the radio shack in the old attic of the Engineering Building. Professor Terman’s laboratories were next door. Some times he would stop to chat for a minute or two. After several such brief visits, I was amazed to find that he knew a great deal about me….He knew what courses I had taken and what my grades had been He had even looked up my high school record and my scores in the entrance examinations. Fred Terman had developed his characteristic thoroughness over thirty years ago.


Enrolled in Terman’s course in his senior year, Packard found him to be “a great teacher. He had the ability to make a very complex problem seem the essence of simplicity. He would eliminate the unimportant factors from complex mathematical analysis and reduce the answer to terms even I could understand. This was the secret of his book on Radio Engineering. This is why this book became the most widely used text on this subject in the world.”


“The highlight of his course for me was the opportunity to visit some of the laboratories and factories in this area. Here for the first time I saw young entrepreneurs working on new devices in firms which they had established. “


Packard relates how  “Up until that time I hoped I might be fortunate enough to get a job with one of the great electrical companies like G. E. or Westinghouse. But this was the Fall of 1933 and the Spring of 1934. There were nowhere enough jobs available for all of us who were graduating. Thus it was Professor Terman who convinced me that if I could not find a job to my liking, I could perhaps make one for myself. I did get a job at G.E. gut Professor Terman kept in touch with me, and with Bill Hewlett, and he helped to bring us back to Palo Alto together to begin the business venture we have been struggling with ever since.”


“The electronic industries we visited around here in 1934 employed only a few hundred people, and had a combined annual volume of probably less than a million dollars. Today, the electronics industry of the Bay Area employees [sic] about 45,000 people, and will produce this year three-quarter billion dollars worth of goods and services Fred Terman, more than any other single individual is responsible for this amazing development.”


Packard tells how it was Professor Terman’s vision that encouraged the academic community and the business community to work together for the benefit of both.


“Many of the benefits Stanford has received from its close association with business and industry are evident to all. By 1955 gifts to Stanford from Corporations had reached the level of $500,000 annually. In the first eight months of this fiscal year they have been $2.2 Million.”


“Not so well known, particularly in academic circles, is the fact that business leadership in America has been rapidly developing a sense of broad social responsibility. Business leaders are taking an active and a constructive role in civil rights. They are becoming much more aware of the importance of the arts and the humanities. And the social sciences. A great many of them fully recognize the importance of the great universities like Stanford to the welfare and the progress of society at large.”


Packard tells how other universities have developed close associations with industry in their areas – but not all. ”There is little such development around Yale and Princeton. Only a small amount of industrial development in the Boston area can be attributed to Harvard. Purdue has a great engineering school, as does the University of Illinois, and Michigan State. Leaders from each of these schools, as well as others, have asked me how they can establish a relationship between their University and industry, such as we have at Stanford. My answer is simple – I say “Go out and find yourself a Fred Terman.”


Packard talks about the characteristics ”which have made Fred Terman one of the great men of Stanford….important intellectual contributions to his academic discipline …a great teacher in his ability to convey his subject matter to his ….Equally important student, he knew his students personally, and he took a great interest in each of them. He never seemed to consider Stanford just as a community of scholars, or as an Ivory Tower separated from the practical affairs of the world. Rather, he built a strong bond of understanding between the business community related to his discipline and his department in the University.”


Packard notes several teachers and professors who have been a part of the long tradition at Stanford of combining the intellectual and the practical,  and adds that “Fortunately we have many young men on the faculty today following in these footsteps.”


“Members of the Stanford faculty from the beginning through the years of Fred Terman’s career have had a long and distinguished tradition of active involvement in the practical affairs around them. It is almost as though they were guided by Senator Stanford’s desire – that Stanford be a practical school – not one devoted to educating useless men.


“Over the past few years Stanford has been undergoing a great change. Fortunately many new and distinguished professors have joined this faculty. Many of these new people are sympathetic to the Stanford tradition. There are some who do not seem to understand that Stanford has a great tradition of being itself. They would propose to remold this University in the image of Harvard, or Yale, or Oxford, Paris or Heidelberg..


“And so as Fred Terman’s career at Stanford comes to an end, and we move on to the future, it is my sincere hope that we will continue to honor him by persevering some of the great things he has given our University. In the words of Tom Barclay – “I would like to believe that you will take with you, as a heritage, something of the spirit of the old Stanford, as well as the benefits of the new.”


5/31/65, Printed program for the Stanford University Convocation.

4/28/65, Letter to Packard from J. K. E. Wallace Sterling, President of Stanford, Asking if Packard would be willing to speak at the Convocation honoring Fred Terman.

5/22/65, Copy of advance press release from Stanford regarding the Convocation.

5/28/65, Copy of letter to Dr. J. E. Wallace Sterling from Herbert Hoover  Jr. saying he will be unable to attend the Convocation for Dr. Terman.

5/28/65, Copy of letter to Dr. Frederick E. Terman from Herbert Hoover, Jr. saying how much he regrets not being able to attend the Convocation.

5/31/65, Copy of press release from Stanford telling of the Convocation.

6/1/65, Newspaper clipping regarding the Convocation.

7/29/65, Handwritten letter to Packard from Mrs. Allan E. Charles saying she regretted they could not attend the Convocation.

7/29/65, Letter to Packard from Ira S. Lillick saying he had enjoyed Packard’s speech.




Box 2, Folder 69 – General Speeches


July 15, 1965, “Uncommon Man” degree for Herbert Hoover, Stanford Associates

7/15/65, Copy of text of remarks made by Packard at Stanford Associates “Uncommon Man” Degree Dinner

Packard says Herbert Hoover “was definitely not a common man. He was a humble man, and one who showed great consideration and compassion and understanding of his fellow-man – but he was not common.


“”It was evident early in his career – through his achievements as an engineer, as a humanitarian, throughout his distinguished government career, and by his leadership here in America and abroad, that Herbert Hoover was one of the great men of our time.”


Packard recites a quotation from Hoover regarding the career of engineering where Hoover says “It is a great profession. There is the fascination  of watching a figment of the imagination emerge through the aid of science to a plan on paper. Then it moves to realization in stone or metal or energy. Then it brings jobs and homes to men. Then it elevates the standards of living and adds to the comforts of life. That is the engineer’s high privilege.”


Packard says Hoover spoke of the American way of life and our free enterprise system, referring to the business, industrial and financial managers as “rugged individualists.”


Packard continues to quote Hoover discussing managers and saying “they are self-reliant, rugged, God-fearing people of indomitable courage. They were the ones who asked only for freedom of opportunity and an equal chance. They gave America a genius that distinguished our people from any other in the world.”


Packard says that “This matter of being an individual – an uncommon man – was a subject close to his heart. He fully realized that social, economic, and intellectual progress depended upon these relatively rare men. He recognized the importance – the absolute necessity – for individuals who could rise above the masses and provide creative leadership.”


Packard then includes I statement of Hoover’s wherein he decries the idea of the “Common Man”. He says most Americans would dislike being referred to as “common”. Hoover believes most Americans believe in “equal opportunity for all, but we know that this includes the opportunity to rise to leadership – in other words, to be uncommon.”


Speaking of Hoover Packard says “A truly uncommon man he was, and an uncommon man he will be remembered in the ages to come.


“It is my great privilege and honor, then, to present at this time the Stanford Associates Uncommon Man Degree posthumously to Herbert Clark Hoover. The degree reads”


“To all whom these letters shall come, greeting: The governors of the Stanford Associates, on the recommendation of his many friends, and by virtue of the privilege in them vested, have therefore conferred on  HERBERT CLARK HOOVER, who has exceeded every standard of loyalty and service to Stanford University, the degree of Uncommon Man, with all the rights, privileges, honors and respect thereunto appertaining. Given in the assemblage of Stanford Associates on the fifteenth day of July in the year of our lord one thousand, none hundred and sixty-five.”


“Signed, “Duncan McBryde, President of the Associates.” And “J. E. Wallace Sterling, President of the University.”


“Mr. Allan Hoover will receive the degree in behalf of his father. I present it to him now with pride and gratitude.”


7/15/65, Printed invitation to the dinner honoring Herbert Hoover.

7/15/65, Time schedule for the dinner program and speakers.

7/15/65,  Note to which are attached lists of  the guests.

6/14/65, Letter to Packard from Duncan McBryde inviting him to the dinner honoring Hoover.

6/25/65,  Copy of a letter to Allan Hoover from Jack L. Shepard giving details of the dinner schedule.

6/23/65, Copy of a letter to Duncan McBryde from Allan Hoover saying he will come and accept the degree on behalf of his father.

6/29/65, Copy of a letter to Jack L. Shepard acknowledging receipt of the dinner schedule etc.

6/30/65, Note to Packard from Duncan McBryde enclosing copy of time schedule.

7/3/65, Letter to Packard from Andrew M. Doty providing a draft of remarks Packard may use for his talk presenting the degree.

7/6/65, Copy of letter from Packard to Herbert Hoover Jr. expressing the hope he will be able to attend.

7/12/65, News release from Stanford telling of the degree award.

7/16/65, Reprint of an article in the Los Angeles Times on the award, attached is a card from Otis Chandler

7/21/65, Letter to Packard from Arthur C. Oppenheimer II thanking Packard for inviting him to the dinner.

7/23/65, Letter to Packard from Duncan McBryde thanking him for his help in the dinner.

7/21/65, Letter to Packard from H. Edward Hanson requesting a copy of Packard’s speech

7/30/65, Copy of letter from Packard to H. Edward Hanson enclosing a copy of the speech he made at the dinner.

8/2/65, Letter to Packard from Helen M Sheldon, Secretary to Jeremiah Milbank, thanking Packard for sending copies of pictures taken at the dinner, which she will send on to Mr. Milbank.

8/3/65, Letter to Packard from H. Edward Hanson, requesting  a dozen more copies of Packard’s speech.

Also in the folder are many letters to Packard indicating acceptance or regrets to the dinner invitation.



Box 2, Folder 70 – General Speeches


July 20, 1965, Dedication of Herbert Hoover Room, The Hoover Institution, Friends of Stanford, Hoover Institution, Stanford.

7/20/65, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech at this dedication.

Standing in the Herbert Hoover Room Packard says “As one stands in this room and surveys the exhibits which demonstrate the wide range of accomplishments of this man – his service to humanity through his relief work – his public service under five presidents of the United States, and as president himself – the honorary degrees and awards he received – the books he wrote – and many other evidences of the great works of his life and of the esteem in which he was held by millions of people throughout the world, it is indeed gratifying to recall that he considered this institution the most important work of his lifetime.”


To Packard, “…this seems to emphasize the fact that the welfare of humanity was the great motivating aspiration of his life. This concern for human welfare, this love of fellow man, was amply demonstrated in everything else he did..


Packard recalls that Hoover began his career as an engineer and businessman, and “When speaking of his profession, he emphasized its social benefits – the “unending stream of goodness”, “jobs and homes to men.” He said engineering “elevates the standard of living and adds to the comforts of life.”


“His early devotion to the welfare of mankind no doubt stemmed from his Quaker upbringing and it led him from his career as an engineer and businessman to devote the last 50 years of his life to public service. Time and again his high motives called similar response from those who knew him and who worked with him. As a food administrator during World War I he called for men to volunteer as he had done. But more important, he relied largely on voluntary cooperation in solving the many problems of maintaining an adequate supply and distribution of essential foodstuffs to mount a successful war effort.”


“And in his administration of this program, although there were great and serious difficulties, most of these were solved because the business community rose above their selfish interests under his leadership.


“And his leadership toward a higher ethic in business affairs continued as he took charge of the Department of Commerce and introduced many policies and programs which helped the business community better serve the public welfare.”


Packard says advancing human welfare became a dominant motivation for Hoover as he devoted his life to public service. “Service to humanity, however noble, was not a common characteristic of the world of commerce and business during the early decades of the 20th Century. Profit was the businessman’s dominant objective and human considerations were secondary. Labor was considered to be only a commodity to be bought and sold on the open market and the best advice for the customer was “caveat emptor.”


However, Packard sees that this attitude has undergone a “momentous change” in the last few decades. “Businessmen now fully recognize they have a responsibility to their employees, to their customers, and the welfare of society at large. Mr. Hoover’s influence, by way of his example and by way of his constructive thoughts and actions throughout his many years of public service, have had no small effect in contributing to a higher ethic in the administration of business and industry.”


Noting that the Hoover Room is just across the way from the new Business School building, Packard hopes “that future generations of students studying for a career in business will have the opportunity to visit this room and thereby receive some inspiration toward the high ethical standards which are reflected by the life work of this great man.”


Turning to Hoover’s contributions to Stanford he says he won’t try to recount them all, “But I think it worth noting that he served as a trustee from 1912 until his death last year – over a half century of devoted, uninterrupted service.


“He established the Building and Grounds Committee of the Board in 1914 and had much to do with the University’s early architecture and campus planning. In 1936 he took leadership in a petition to the Superior Court of Santa Clara County to obtain authority for the Trustees to invest the University’s endowment funds in common stock. Until then the investments had been in seasoned bonds and first mortgages only and amounted to $24 million. As of last month the appreciation of the stock portfolio amounted to $47 million, approximately twice the value of the total endowment at the time of the court action initiated by Mr. Hoover.”


“His health prevented his coming to the campus during the last few years of his life, but he continued to serve his Alma Mater. His last great contribution was as Honorary Chairman of the PACE program, and many of our major gifts during the past three years were a direct result of his participation by way of letters written to prospective donors or meetings in his apartment at the Waldorf Towers.


“It is a great American and a great son of Stanford we are honoring today.


“It is my hope that the Herbert Hoover Room will serve as a continuing inspiration to all here present and to all who follow to assure that the Hoover Institution on the Stanford campus achieves the lofty goals set by its founder.


“It is also my hope that the Institution will serve as a great beacon on the path of world peace, and as a wellspring of dedication and faith for the American society which Herbert Hoover loved so well.”


7/20/65, Printed invitation to the dedication.

6/9/65, Note from Margaret Paull to Packard informing him of Dr. Campbell’s call inviting him to the dedication ceremony.

6/25/65, Letter to Packard from W. Glenn Campbell giving details on dedication.




Box 2, Folder 71 – General Speeches


July 29, 1965, Article “A Management Code of Ethics,” Supervisory Management Magazine, AMA, New York


7/29/65, Copy of typewritten text of article.


In this article Packard expresses the thought that “One of our country’s greatest assets – and perhaps its most powerful weapon in the struggle against Communism – is the immense strength and vitality of our economic system.


“We need to remind ourselves of this fact from time to time because of the tremendous responsibility it imposes on business and industrial management. This responsibility includes the continuing obligation to produce goods and services of the highest quality, to increase productive efficiency, to maintain high levels of employment, and to do the many other things required to keep our economy strong and growing.”


However, Packard adds that “The role of management…extends far beyond these traditional concepts. It includes broader social responsibilities which, until recent years, went either unnoticed or unheeded. Not until World Wear II was there any noticeable effort by business and industrial leaders to participate in l0cal, national and foreign affairs – outside of normal business activity. During the first 40 or 50 years of this century the great majority of managers had one overriding objective in the conduct of their businesses. That objective was to make a profit.”


While stating that these earlier managers “gave us a rich and valuable heritage” Packard adds that “Today’s business manager must add to this heritage, not merely use it. He can best do this by first realizing that profit is not the proper end and aim of management, but only that which makes all of the proper ends and aims possible. And a very proper end is social progress.


“Evolution of social progress is achieved through three mechanisms. One is a build-up of countervailing forces of power. The union movement is one example, while another, and more recent example, is the civil rights movement.


“A second mechanism is the intervention of a super authority, such as our federal government.


“The third, and most constructive mechanism, is one where the people in a position to improve a social situation, do so by a process of self-enlightened action.”


And Packard sees “…that within the past 10 or 15 years a large section of American management has acknowledged the superiority of the latter method, has begun adjusting to the concept, and has, in some cases, made an attempt to disclose this new posture to the various publics with which it deals.”


Packard says that the AMA has encourages the adoption of statements of ethics, and, “   in effect, they have helped build corporate codes of ethics out of the personal ethics of the modern manager.


“A code of ethics is a code of conduct not imposed by low, not imposed by common custom, but self-imposed because you believe in it. It comes from a belief in some higher selfless spirit and is directed toward the achievement of a high objective.”


“The great ethic, around which Western Civilization has developed, is the Judaic-Christian Code. It comes presumably from divine authority and has the highest objective for its individual adherents…a place in heaven for eternity.


“But, more important, at least for this discussion, it has a high worldly objective, the brotherhood of man. The great accomplishments of the free world come from its broad acceptance. The theme is common for all, whether it be expressed as the “Golden Rule,” the “Ten Commandments,” the Sermon on the Mount” or from the teachings of the Talmud. It has had a tremendous impact in a worldly sense. All of those things which we cherish in our Western Civilization have come from the common acceptance of this code throughout the Western world.”


Packard points out that nearly every organization in this country  – the Rotarians, the Kiwanians,  the Boy Scouts –  have “grown around its own code of ethics based generally, of course, upon the Judaic-Christian Code.


“It seems strange indeed, then, that the great fraternity of business management as a whole has not developed a code of ethics of more common acceptance. It is not only strange; it is unfortunate, because no other group in the country with a common interest has so much influence over so many people. Our influence cuts across party lines; its extent knows no race, color or creed. We affect, in fact control, every media of mass communication.


“But, too often we continue to stick to the proposition that we are in business primarily to make a profit. There are some very good reasons for this in the very nature of a corporation. As managers, we are agents of our stockholders; they invest in our businesses to make a profit. We have a responsibility to do this for them, and we can point with pride at our achievements of producing goods and services that have raised the standard of living in this country to a level almost beyond belief.


“But, for all these achievements there are signs that American business has not quite measured up in the eves of the world. “


“We also know from experience that people overseas like our products but question our ethics.


“We in private industry have much to do to improve the image others have of us. Perhaps translation of our own personal codes of ethics into our management jobs is not enough. If we are to assume the rather awesome social responsibilities we have at home and abroad, perhaps we need to develop a clear-cut management code of ethics which can stand on its own and be accepted and supported throughout the business community.


“One of the reasons we have not done this is because we have not yet agreed upon a higher aim – the preservation of our business freedom on which to base a code of ethics.


“As a suggestion, here a few tenets that might be considered for a management code. These are not one man’s ideas. They come from statements business leaders have made over the past several years.


“One tenet is to manage our business enterprises first and foremost so we make a contribution to society. If we provide a service, it should be the best possible service, oriented toward the public welfare. If we make a product, it should represent the utmost in quality and value. This is, of course, precisely what the most successful businesses do.


“Another tenet is to recognize the dignity and personal worth of every person we employ. In subscribing to this tenet, we must provide an opportunity for employees to share in the company’s success, provide them job security based on job performance, and most importantly, recognize their need for personal satisfaction that comes from a sense of accomplishment.


“This concept has achieved some acceptance. It must be emphasized that the objective of this proposed tenet is not simply to make our organizations more efficient, although this will certainly be one result. This ethic, however we choose to express it, must be based solidly on the premise that labor is not a commodity to be bought  and sold in the marketplace.


“The third tenet has to do with management’s responsibility to society at large. Our churches and schools play a great part in the intellectual and moral training on which we rely every day and rarely give a second thought. Many of the tools and techniques we use in our day-to-day work have emanated from the efforts of our great universities in extending the frontiers of knowledge.


“We have a responsibility for our private charities. Not only should we provide them money from our businesses and encourage our employees to give them support, but we should also participate actively in the establishment and achievement of their goals. Whenever possible, social welfare should be the responsibility of privately supported institutions.


“The fourth tenet in our code should be directed toward a better understanding of the nature of profit. Profit is the monetary measurement of our contribution to society. It is the difference between the value of the goods and services we give to society, and the value we take from it. Profit is the insurance we have that our business will continue to grow and flourish. With a good profit we can meet our obligations to our customers, to employees, and to the public at large. We can also provide our stockholders with a fair return to encourage their continues investment as well. And, most importantly, it is the wherewithal we need to assist in the furtherance of man’s progress.”


Packard tells of attending a conference the previous year, attended by a cross-section of business and industrial leaders, where they discussed how they could aid education, how they could help government do a better job, how they could influence international affairs, and many broad social problems. He says “They all believe, of course, that an adequate profit is necessary for a business to grow and flourish in our free enterprise economy. But that subject was not mentioned.”


“The contribution of the business community to this progress is gradually increasing. But the weight of our contribution will not be felt until we recognize that final and permanent change for the better in all human affairs comes not from strife between people, nor groups of people attempting to force acceptance of their views; not from power imposed by a super authority; but rather from self-enlightened action of all concerned – whether they be individuals or nations. This is the challenge and the responsibility of the free society. And, as part of the free society, it is the challenge and the responsibility of American business management as well.


A management code of ethics can provide direction of purpose, and significantly enough, at the same time provide an essential ingredient in the bonding and unification of the business community – a unification so necessary to the advancement of American business, the American economic and political system, and a free and enlightened world.”


3/65, Letter to Packard from Peter C. Reid, Associate Editor, Supervisory Management, asking if he would be willing to write a sequel to his article which appeared in their magazine in 1958.

6/2/65, Copy of a letter from Packard to Peter C. Reid saying he would write a sequel.

7/29/65, Letter to Peter C. Reid from David B. Kirby [HP Public relations Director] asking for the date the article will be published.

Box 1, Folder 24 – HP Management


January 15, 1965 – Management Conference, Monterey


1/15/65, Handwritten notes by Packard titled “Agenda”

New Product Program, what growth targets to expect

How to increase efficiency


Government Contract policies and relations

Management Development

Personnel Policies

Objectives for 1965

Need to review objectives in light of changing environment for HP and in             light of expanding character of Company

Government market largest factor in the market for HP products

Government market leveling off and may go down

We must work harder to obtain our share of Government influenced                        market

Increase effort to expand involvement in non-government influenced                       markets

As to objectives Packard starts with Profit, saying “It should be our aim to maintain profit margins while building strength for the future. We have stated that overall corporate profit should be 8% after taxes…This will require that all divisions must move to an operating profit of 20% or more. Marketing costs per dollar of sales be held at or below present levels


“The second objective – to make important contributions to the field of electronic instrumentation….All of our experience indicates that the best opportunities are generated by the new products which really make a substantial contribution….Our success can in some measure be attributed to our specialization and concentration in the field of measuring instruments. We should not diversify our efforts too far but it seems clear there other opportunities within range of our abilities and these should be considered.”

1/15/65, Conference agenda and supporting material.



Box 1, Folder 25 – HP Management


March 20, 1965 – Talk to Salesmen, New York


From Packard’s notes for the talk:

Gives report on sales and shipments to date.

Corporate profits 8%, result of good management of costs

Result of good new product effort.

Appreciate excellent performance of all of you here.

Projections for future: double in five years, double everything we have done in last                        25.

Requires careful planning: financial, buildings, people

“As we look to future we must keep opportunity for each individual to have opportunity to achieve his aspirations  – to utilize his abilities for common benefit   of us all.”


“Our underlying objectives to find the best balance between the individual responsibility and…to combine with it a desire and incentive to join this in an objective to contribute to the strength of the corporation as a whole.”


“It is the underlying principle of these plans that you people in the marketing organization provide the most important unifying bond for the corporation. You are charged with the talk of bringing all of the manufacturing divisions together at the level of the customer.”


“We must meet the needs of our customers – this is the final aim of our combined effort – if we fail to do this we will fail in everything we want to achieve.”


“We have in our organization here in this room tonight the greatest collection of talent which has ever been assembled. There has never been a greater opportunity for any group of individuals – there has never been a greater opportunity for any company. It is up to all of us to do the job.”



Box 1, Folder 26 – September 23, 1965, – Sanborn Management Conference, Andover


9/23/65 Extracts from Packard’s handwritten notes for the event.

Big picture,  gives growth %. “Our goal to meet opportunities available to us –       15% per year [growth] – double in about 5 years…. Duplicate everything in the   next five years we have done in last twenty five.”


“If we are to meet our goals – to live to the opportunities that are available to us as an organization and as individuals we must look forward to change and to growth. I fully expect our entire organization to meet this challenge. I have no doubt we will be twice as big and I hope also twice as good five or six years from now than we are today”

9/23/65, Agenda for Conference and some supporting material.

1966 – Packard Speeches


Box 3, Folder 1 – General Speeches


March 22, 1966, Remarks to New York Security Analysts, New York City.

And similar comments to Boston Security Analysts on February 9, 1966. Since these are almost identical only the March talk is covered here as Packard’s notes for that are more comprehensive.


3/22/66, Packard’s handwritten notes for his talk. Notes are frequently cryptic and/or in brief outline form. The following attempts to quote his notes from beginning to end – no editorial text.


“State of Industry

Projections of Electronics Magazine in January.

Total               19,430             +8%

Consumer        3,300               +10%

Color TV      1,400

Industrial         5,837               +16%


Federal                        10,200             +6%


These figures look conservative now – Viet Nam 10 Billion. Could go to 19 @ 400,000 men.


International – Figures not very accurate by comparison. Possibly half of US Market. Has been growing fast. Probably slow down. Trend up but slowing.


Industry in tight economic condition.

Material shortages, copper, even aluminum.


Components in short supply, production delays, increasing quality problems.


Skilled manpower – machinists and technicians.


Engineer recruiting, especially at colleges very competitive,


Pressure on Costs – probably not severe.


At IEEE Show integrated circuits had headlines.

Big applications computers and some military equipment.


Impact on instrumentation

HP will have products using IC by end of year.


Give Details in Our Area

Test equipment more accurate and sophisticated.

Trend toward automation.


HP Operations first quarter

Orders – 51,294,000                +35%

Seasonal Pattern

Shipments – 43,668,000         +30%



8.7%            3,791,000        +48%

7.6%            2,458,000


Per Share         31 cents    /      20 cents



International –  $12,081,000   +29%

Research and Development – 10.5% or about 8.5

All divisions performance good.

Microwave and F&T Viet Nam

Of International 1965

2/3 Europe

20% Canada and Western Hemisphere

12% Asia and Africa


International Manufacturing

GMBH – +39%

Ltd         +63%

YHP       Problems


Balance of payments program will not slow growth. Borrowing in Europe now – may increase, probably at least 10% due to Viet Nam.


Some divisions strong from new plant and equipment expenditures. Little Viet Nam influence.

New products continue to be major factor – cover some of these in detail later.


Balance Sheet


Cash down, retire preferred stock – 8 million.

Plant and equipment – up. Probably spend 20 million this year vs 10


Accounts payable up – tight money.

Remainder of year push on production.

175,000 sq. ft. Palo Alto

Two buildings in Mt. View



Material shortages.

Copper, parts, aluminum ingots

Labor – Overtime and push on wages.

Probably maintain profit margins


New Products have been life blood of growth.

In 1965 – 16 new products produced 17 million out of 30 million gain. We are showing 60 or so new products at

IRE. Not all important but 15 or 20 should have mature sales level of 1 million annually or more.


New Products at IEEE

4260 Universal impedance bridge.

Made in Japan – important to build up sales for other HP products.


Two good products from Oscilloscope division.

141A Variable Resistance Scope

155A Programmable Scope

Other good scope products during year.


2212A Voltage Frequency  Coverter.

Computer controlled data system.

Quartz thermometer – volume this year.


Frequency and Time

5255A 3-12.4 GHz Converter.

5206A Automatic Converter.

Will support 5245L Counter

Reversible Counter



Several new supplies introduced some designed to work with integrated circuits.


HP Associates

Microwave switches

Hot corner diodes

Step recovery

New marketing program



Sampling voltmeter

New digital voltmeter – improve position

Voltage standards

Auto ranging voltmeter

Inexpensive multi-purpose voltmeter.



Spectrum Analyzers

Sweep oscillators

Vector Voltmeter – sampling

Phase lock for signal generators.

1.5 MC tape system


Sanborn Division

Intensive Care Units

Medical recorders

Data amplifiers

New instruments on deck – from HPL

New marketing organization

South America

We are in medical business to stay – strengthen R&D and whole management team there.


Chemical Instruments


F&M – Good response

Mechnolab products

Backup programs at HPL

Porter moving East Coast to provide management support for chemical instruments.


Management Organization

Strong Manufacturing Divisions

Marketing organization complete.

Order processing

Service centers east and west

Service contracts

Order handling system

In 1956 we did 20 million

We will be pushing 200 million in 1966 – strong hard hitting team in every area.

Continue to make as important contribution in future as we have in the past.


3/22/66, Outline of March 22 speech in New York, handwritten by Packard

2/9/66, Outline of comments for February speech in Boston, handwritten by Packard

9/3/65, Copy of letter from Packard to Richard M Hexter concerning scheduling details for speech.

9/8/65, Letter to Packard from Richard M. Hexter saying 3/22/66  date OK.

3/22/66, Newspaper clipping from Palo Alto Times covering Packard’s talk.

3/25/66, Letter to Packard from Richard M Hexter thanking Packard for speech.

5/2/66, Letter to Packard from John G. Lilienthal complimenting him on speech.

1/10/66, Copy of Electronics magazine forecasting fast growth for electronics industry in 1966.

3/66, Copy of HP InterCom magazine covering several new products

Also copies of many letters requesting copies of speech.



Box 3, Folder 2 – General; Speeches


April 6, 1966 , “The Fourth Dimension of Management” Stanford School of Business, Alumni of Paul Holden Management Luncheon, Los Angeles.


4/6/66, Typewritten text of speech.

As a preface to his talk Packard explains that he had tried to take a course from Professor Holden at Stanford, “but for some reason I could not get into his course – probably because he thought I wasn’t up to it.” He did succeed in taking evening classes from Holden later on and says that “Although I had only limited exposure to the wisdom of Paul Holden in my education on management, that exposure had no small influence on such success as I have been able to achieve. [As a sidelight, it was Professor Holden who requested that Packard speak to this group of Holden alumni and business people in Southern California.]

Packard says that over the past “twenty-five years there have been some interesting changes taking place in management theory and practice,” and he says would like to discuss some of these today.


In the first place Packard says he has seen “a growing recognition of the human side of management.” He recalls a conference on personnel management which he attended in 1946. In answer to a question concerning management’s responsibility beyond trying to make a maximum profit, Packard said he suggested “that perhaps we should provide job security, we should help our people achieve their personal aspirations and those of their families, we should provide the best working conditions possible, because our employees spent half their waking hours with us.” He says he “received little sympathy from the group. Some said, “Yes, to the extent you could prove profits were increased, but not otherwise.”

Today I am sure their answer would be different. Many, if not most, management people would say employee welfare is an objective to be balanced against profits –and other things , too.”


Packard says “A second change in management over the last 25 years has been the growing responsibility management people recognize to the community at large. Business people in the competitive free market system traditionally recognized such a responsibility, but felt apparently, this responsibility was discharged by the performance of their business. Free enterprise business has given America the highest standard of living the world has known, …”What more do you expect of us?” the businessman has asked. But it is clear that society does expect more, and this fact is becoming accepted by the management profession. Charitable support of education by business on a non-restricted basis at an increasing level, is one evidence. Participation by management people in such organizations as the Committee for Economic Development, is another.”


Packard gives other examples of voluntary participation by management when requested by government. When “the President asked the business community to participate in a voluntary program to help improve this country’s balance of payments problem….The participation was widespread and substantial….There has been voluntary participation for the common good at the expense of the short-term welfare of the specific enterprise before – during wartime, or during an obvious national crisis. Participation on a voluntary basis, in such a problem as the country’s balance of payments, requires both a mature and a sophisticated understanding of a complex problem, and a high commitment to the common good.”


Packard gives another recent example where “the President asked the business community to respond, by voluntary action, to help system the increasing inflationary pressures in our economy, by reducing or stretching out new plant and equipment expenditures. I believe the response will be substantial, even though in every case it will require that management people forego something they intended to do for the best interest of their individual enterprises.”


Proceeding with a discussion of changes in management attitudes, Packard says that “One of the key ingredients of management is organization – the structure of the assignments of responsibility. Here, it seems to me, there has been a definite trend away from centralization to decentralization, away from the concept of a military type organization of control by command.


“This trend has been substantially influenced by human considerations. One concept that has affected organization structure is the concept of management by objective. Following this concept, the organization is structured so every employee has as much freedom as possible in applying his skill, knowledge, and initiative to his job. It preserves as much human dignity as possible for every employee – fortunately, if done well, it also makes for efficient performance of the organization.”


Packard describes a concept, used by companies in the past, whereby the Comptroller was expected to control the business, and may have reported directly to the board of directors. Nowadays, however, Packard says “The manager expected to be responsible for his own area of involvement. Accounting and financial control is a tool he is expected to use to do his job better, not as a control to be used to tell him what to do.


“Indeed, the further we move toward freedom for the individual manager, the more we find human considerations and non-financial management techniques being used, in addition to financial controls.” Packard warns that “…in many cases over the last few years, where companies moving toward a decentralization structure have put too much emphasis on short-term profits, and have thereby failed to build long term strength into their organization. This weakness in building long-term strength is evidenced by such things as inadequate personnel development within the organization, failure to recognize the importance of research and innovation, and the absence of well developed long range plans which are understood and accepted by the organization.”


“No one should propose that we know the ideal organization structure, but I do believe we have made a great deal of progress in the right direction. At least some people have come to recognize that the objective of management is to provide an environment in which every person in the organization can utilize his or here ability most efficiently toward the common goal. The problem is to provide an environment under which this is achieved. It is, in by opinion, not well done by a command performance, not under a financial controller, nor under any rigid control from the top, as was thought a few decades ago.


“You may well raise the question about the new scientific methods being proposed for…management….Under this concept, taken to the ultimate, the manager would spend his life sitting before a console – a television type display – which would present facts and figures, charts and graphs, from the corporate computer and its information input system. The manager would push the appropriate button to see his daily or hourly sales, inventory, profit, state of the market, or whatever he thought necessary. It is even conceivable that, having the appropriate model programmed into the computer, the manager could ask the computer to make the optimum decision for the particular circumstances.


“When I think of such a management system I am reminded of a comment made by my friend, Professor Condliffe, who held a Chair in Economics at the University of California for many years….Professor Condliffe tells the story about the old librarian who, in handing out his first book on mathematical economics, said to him, “My boy, if you borrow this book you should not just glance through it and bring it back to me. You should read it thoroughly and digest it. But when you have done this, I beg of you to remember that (a + b)= a2 + 2ab + b2 only on one condition – that “a” is not stronger minded than “b”. If he is, the result will be a3 + b.”


“I presume the management profession will always have those who are looking for ways to find objective and impersonal answers to the complex problems of human organization. Twenty-five years ago the impersonal accountant, the controller, was one such proposal. Today we have the computer which makes possible a much more sophisticated mathematical approach.


“I believe we have made a great deal of progress in understanding the role of the individual in an organization. We have seen the manager’s horizon expanded to better understand the role of the people working in his organization, as well as the relation of his organization to the society in which it exists. For this reason I am greatly troubled by these new trends toward the impersonal approach to management. It is not that I believe mathematics and computers have no place in management. They do. They are important tools. They can collect, refine, and analyze the data necessary to make decisions. In some routine situations they may be able to make the decisions and implement the results. If, however, they are used to manipulate people like cogs in a machine, they will fail in their purpose, and they will be no credit to your profession, not to our society at large.


“It is my hope that these trends, which I have been observing over these past 25 years, toward a more human and a more responsible attitude of management, will continue. Management has come recognize its responsibility to employees as human beings – to recognize that their aspirations and their welfare are as important as profit. Management has come to recognize that a business organization is an important part of, integral with, and responsible to, society at large.”


“The proper role of business is not just to make a profit, but rather to make a contribution to society in all of its facets. Profit is only the proper measure of that contribution.


“This philosophy of management places great demands on the manager. He must be a broad gauged person. He must be knowledgeable in the techniques of management. He must have the vision to see beyond his day-to-day problems, both in time and in distance.


“We see in many business organizations broad gauged people, well trained in the techniques of management. We see men with the far-sighted vision of which I speak. We see new mathematical methods of analysis being used, including computers. We have these things in our company. But when I see a department well run, a division well run, or  company well run, I never see it done with good judgment, understanding of human values, mastery of management techniques, or vision alone – there is always a fourth dimension added – it can best be described as the strong minded man. He may even be lacking in some of the other dimensions, but somehow he brings out the best in his people and his organization, and he brings out performance beyond the call of duty. He can do it, whatever his assignment. If he needs financial controls, or mathematical approaches, or computers, he will get them if he can. If he doesn’t have them, he will get the job done anyway.


“This, then, is the fourth dimension of management – the personal drive and leadership ability of the manager. It is the difference between the great manager and the mediocre manager. It is the mainspring of management.”


“I am concerned that there may be too much emphasis in the selection and training of future managers on the techniques, on the mathematical analysis side, even on the human and visionary side, rather than how to identify and train the potential dynamic leader. There may be too much emphasis on how to do it, rather than being able to do it.


“Paul Holden, over his long and distinguished career, has made a great contribution to this fourth dimension of management. He had a great ability to pick students who became doers, and he inspired them in the vision of all of the great challenges of the profession. It is my hope that Stanford, and all the other leading business schools throughout the country, will continue to hold this as their first objective – to build strong in all the dimensions of management – but above all, to select and train the strong minded leader who will make the combination of a plus b squared, become not just a cubed plus b, but a to the fourth power plus b.”


2/4/66, Letter to Packard from John L. Wiester, President Stanford Business School Association of Southern California, asking if Packard would be willing to speak to their group at the annual Paul Holden Management luncheon.

2/24/66, Copy of letter from Margaret Paull to Robert J. Evers sending biography and photo of Packard.

3/1/66, Letter to Packard from John L. Wiester talking about travel arrangements.

3/2/66, Memo from Dave Kirby to Margaret Paull that the Stanford people would like to know a title of Packard’s speech as soon as possible.

4/6/66, Newspaper clipping from Palo Alto Times covering Packard’s speech.

4/7/66, Newspaper clipping from the Los Angeles Times covering Packard’s speech.

4/8/66, Letter to Packard from John L. Wiester thanking him for participating in the luncheon.

4/12/66, Letter to Packard from E. G. Nichols of Weston Instruments, Inc. agreeing with Packard’s comments on computers.

4/15/66, Letter to Packard from Melvyn S. Glass in Los Altos commenting on SP’s speech and enclosing an article by a Louis Kelso which he recommends.

5/2/66, Copy of a letter from Packard to Melvyn Glass saying Kelso’s article “is about as socialistic as I have seen, and would have all the disadvantages of such a system.”

4/15/66, Handwritten, two page letter to Packard from John Troxell, Stanford University Division of Industrial Relations, commenting favorably on Packard’s speech.

Summer 1966, Stanford Graduate School of Business Bulletin containing a summary of Packard’s speech along with photo of he along with Paul Holden and John L. Wiester. Packard is shown receiving the Paul E. Holden Lecture Award.

Several letters requesting copies of Packard’s speech.




Box 3, Folder 3 – General Speeches


May 6, 1966, “Business as a Social Institution” American Heritage Lecture, University of Colorado, Boulder , Colorado


5/6/66, Copy of typewritten speech


Packard says “We are continuing to experience the most impressive period of economic prosperity and growth in the history of America.” He gives some statistics to highlight this: Gross National Product up to 725 billion from 504 in 1960 – an increase of 40%. “To put these figures in perspective, in a mere five years we have increased our output of goods and services by an amount nearly equal to the total goods and services available to the people in France and Germany combined.,.”


Although the future looks bright, Packard sees “a strong current of restlessness, a growing concern among the American people about their society. It is a concern among groups of people who feel they have not received their fair share of the increasing prosperity. But, it is also the concern of people who believe that a society should provide more than material benefits for its people. It is expressed by students …by men and women in government, in professional life, in the arts, and in business and industry. It is a basic questioning of our goals and values – and it is expressed by many thinking Americans.”


Packard acknowledges that with all the unrest going on “…it is difficult to keep the current upsurge of social unrest in perspective. The age-old American Dream of social equality, and a good life for every American, has generated a turmoil which has been recorded, in varying degrees of intensity, in every period of our history. If the turmoil seems greater today it may be because communication between people is more efficient than ever before, with radio, television, easy and rapid travel across the country, in addition to the written word in newspapers, periodicals and books.”


“Even though the present social unrest is expressed in the main by minorities, and its  manifestations are magnified by our vast and efficient communication facilities, it seems nevertheless a very real and genuine Phenomena. Behind it lies the immensely important fact that the great economic progress of the Western World has brought legitimate social goals within reach of all. Under these circumstances it seems to me that impatience with progress – rather, the lack of progress – is bound to increase.”


Packard recalls that “Social equality was, after all, one of the founding concepts of America, It represented the opportunity to improve one’s position, to provide a better life for one’s children…. The American Dream was developed in an environment which rewarded hard work and ability, rather than social background. The proper rewards were a better job, a better home, a better economic position, when the majority were living at the edge of poverty. But it is taking a short-sighted view of human nature, indeed, to assume that aspiration are, or should be, limited to the benefits of affluence. An improved economic status is a reasonable first objective in human progress, but it should by no means be considered the only, or the final, objective.”


Packard says that “It seems to me, then, quite reasonable to assume that as satisfactory levels, of material well-being are achieved, other goals and aspirations of people will become more important….Furthermore, as a large majority of our people achieve a satisfactory economic position, those who fail to do so are properly more concerned as to why they are left behind.”


Packard says he does not always agree with the methods employed in some areas of social unrest, not with some of the disruptive forces behind them, “I must conclude that the developments are logical and healthy for the future of America.


“This concern about America and its future is apparent in every facet of our society. It is being expressed in the government by a myriad of new laws and administrative action directed toward social welfare. It is being expressed by the churches, no longer content with the role of leading the way to a better life in the hereafter. They are increasingly becoming involved in trying to make a better life here, now. New organizations to attack social problems are springing up on every side. The institution of business is not exempt from these influences – in fact, the business community is very much at the forefront of the modern social revolution. Today I want to explore with you some of the developments which have been changing the business enterprise from a strictly economic activity to an activity which has a strong social basis, and one which is having, and will continue to have, profound effect on the progress of our society in other than material ways.


“The business community has, almost throughout history, been accused of crass materialistic, selfish motives.”


“In more modern times it has been widely accepted that the business of business is business – and nothing else. The capitalistic, free enterprise, business community of America has traditionally defended itself in this position – by claiming, and with ample justification, that its methods have produced for the American Society the highest standard of living the world has ever known.


“Before the turn of the century the profit motive and free enterprise were sometimes defended on the theory of selective and self-improving evolution – the survival of the fittest.”


“Throughout the early decades of the twentieth century, the profit motive and a laissez faire economic environment were the ingredients which continued to build strength into the American economy, and an improved standard of loving for its people. Business leaders could point with justifiable pride to their accomplishments. The average standard of living in America advanced at an impressive rate. The door was always open for a person with ambition, ability, and a little luck, to move up the ladder – often two rungs at a time. The Horatio Alger story was repeated frequently enough to make it a credible goal for any young man or young woman. And it remains so today.”


But even with all this “impressive economic progress…there has been a growing, disquieting concern that this was not enough. Even before the turn of the century it was clear that the American society expected a broader responsibility from its business community. The government expressed its expectations with laws to control trusts, to protect consumers and employees. Labor unions expanded, often led by men who felt they had been denied opportunities in industry. In time they became a formidable counter-force to the power of business.”


Packard says that depressions would tend to intensify the country’s concern about business practices, “and the great depression of the 1930’s was no exception. When the economy was strong, it seemed reasonable to argue that the harsh practices, which resulted from uncontrolled free enterprise and the profit motive, were a small price to pay for the great economic progress produced. When the economy collapsed, the argument collapsed, and the critical attention of public opinion came to action. This the New Deal added new constraints to business, and the power of labor expanded throughout the thirties.


“The growth of business regulation by law, and the growth of union power, were not without their effect on the attitude of business leaders. Throughout the first part of the century there was a growing awareness that business managers did, in fact, have a responsibility beyond making a profit for their investors. They became more aware that their responsibility to their customers was not limited to the doctrine of caveat emptor. They began to realize that labor was not a commodity to be bought and sold on the open market, but was composed of men and women with human aspirations, and should be treated accordingly.


“This trend toward a greater social awareness on the part of business was encouraged by the development of Scientific Management.” And Packard traces the roots of Scientific Management in American history: Eli Whitney’s introduction of interchangeable parts in 1800, making mass production possible, attention to plant layout and material handling. F. W. Taylor’s techniques, which began with time and motion studies, were directed at improving production efficiency, and provided the basis for a management profession. This new profession was limited to specialists in its early years. Out of this beginning has grown a group of people well trained in the expertise of management, who have largely replaced the entrepreneur as the business leader.”


Continuing his description of the evolution of Scientific Management Packard cites a study by Elton Mayo of Harvard which “brought into focus the “human relations” in management. In a famous experiment at the Western Electric Company, he found that people responded to an improved environment with improved productivity. More important, his experiment seemed to demonstrate that people performed better if someone is simply interested in their welfare. This was a revolutionary idea in the 1920’s, but we see it work every day in our factories throughout the country in 1966.


“Market research brought the needs and desires of the customer into focus. The case of the Model T Ford clearly demonstrated that the business manager who thought he alone should decide what the customer should have would be left behind….No business can survive for long unless it serves its customers well.


“And throughout the past few decades business people have taken an increasing interest in the community around them. This was first expressed by the private philanthropy of men who had achieved wealth through their business careers. They built libraries and schools, and contributed in other ways to the public benefit. Then business organizations began to provide support for the social and cultural activities in the communities where they were located. This trend was greatly accelerated by the New Jersey court decision in A. P. Smith Mfg. Vs. Barlow case in 1953, which established that it was a proper function for a corporation to contribute to the support of education and other social endeavors. In recent years business support of America’s schools, colleges and universities has grown at a rapid rate, reaching a level of some $300,000,000 in 1965.”


Packard quotes William Henry Vanderbilt who, in 1880, said “The public be damned.” And Packard adds the observation that “Were Vanderbilt around today he would discover, perhaps to his dismay, that business has become an important social institution.”


Perhaps “a constructive social institution,” he adds. “Ever since the evolution of the industrial economy, business has had an important influence, in one way or another, on the personal lives of many people.


“The jobs which are provided by the business community supply the sole source of income for a majority of all families. One might conclude, if this income is adequate for a reasonable standard of living, the responsibility of business is satisfied. This, however, overlooks the fact that most people spend a large portion of their waking hours at their job. For this reason it has always seemed to me that the working environment, the satisfaction – the enjoyment, if you will – a person receives from the work he does, is important. And I think most business managers, the people who determine such things, have come to agree.”


Packard talks about the new, attractive industrial parks one sees around the country. And he compares these to “the dirty, unattractive industrial sections I used to ride through on the train going into Chicago twenty years ago.


“When one sees the inside of these new, modern factories, the comparison with factories built a few decades ago is even more impressive. In our company we have gone to great lengths to make our plants as attractive as possible for our people, with good lighting, attractive colors, air conditioning, and recreation areas for use in the noon hour.”


“But it is not just the physical environment which makes a job something more than a way to earn a wage. It is also the attitude and relationship among people in the plant. Supervisors are trained in human relations, and many other things are done to treat employees as people, rather than as numbers on a time clock. There are company activities, clubs of numerous kinds for employees, and in every sense a job has become a part of a person’s social life, as well as his economic life. I am convinced the trends toward this end will expand. “


Packard says “There are many other manifestations of this growing social conscience in the business community. Some are seen in the inner workings of the enterprise, others in relations with the outside world.


“There has been a great deal more attention to the customer, in quality of product, in recent years.”


“I do not propose to say that the business community has developed a social conscience toward the customer without some prodding by government regulations, and without the discipline of a free market. Without a doubt, the free market has been the strongest factor in encouraging a sense of business responsibility to the customer. In any case, if one thinks the customer can be protected by the government alone, I suggest he pay a short visit to Russia, where the government has been in complete control of the production of consumer products. There the public could hardly fare worse in getting what it wants and needs, either in quantity or quality.


“ It is in its relationship with the public-at-large that the development of a social conscience in business is most clearly seen. In this area things are happening which do not have a clearly definable business purpose. In some instances they seem even adverse in some degree to the short-term interest of the business enterprise.”


As examples of this Packard tells of two occasions in the past two years where “the President has called on the business community to undertake voluntary action to help solve a problem of national interest. In one case he asked business to limit expenditures and investments overseas to help the country’s balance of payment problem. The problem was caused primarily by government foreign aid and defense expenditures which generated an outflow of dollars.” In another example “the President asked again for the business community to take voluntary action to help stem the threat of inflation which has been developing in our economy over the past few months….voluntary action has been undertaken, again at the expense of legitimate business plans and programs.


“One of the most difficult problems is that of Civil Rights. There are groups which make the headlines. There has been considerable legislation. Behind this is a great deal of constructive effort by the business community. We are working to make available more jobs for minority groups. Many of the people in the minority groups have inadequate education and training for the jobs which are available. To help in this matter most business organizations have expanded their company training programs to help people improve their abilities and to move ahead. Great emphasis is being placed on the job of improving attitudes for better acceptance of these people in their jobs….What I see going on in the business community is more impressive, and I believe producing more progress, than all of the activities which are reported in the headlines – the governmental activities not excepted.


”Another area, broader in scope, in which the business community is making a significant contribution is that of public affairs. This covers a wide range of community, civic and political activities. Not too many years ago, most businessmen took the attitude that “politics is none of my business – nor the business of my employees.”


“Today, however, we find many companies who are devoting considerable time, money and effort to encouraging their employees to take a more active, personal interest in political and other civic affairs….Business is no longer content to “let George do it”; it has come to the realization that politics is not the politicians’ business – it is everybody’s business.


“Week in and week out I see business people concerned with other national problems. I see them providing advice and counsel to various governmental agencies, serving on committees, doing a number of public-spirited jobs – often at a sacrifice of time and energy which could be well spent in managing their own enterprises.”


Packard cautions that “…while I have pointed out that business has come a long way in developing a social conscience, let me assure you that it still has a long way to go. There are still within our ranks practitioners of chicanery, double-talk, fact-dodging, half-truths. There are those who are so enamoured with short-term profits that they overlook the importance of building long-term strength and vitality into their organizations.


“And even among those who have shown a flicker of public spirit, of responsible citizenship, there are still some who are unwilling to tackle the really big problems of the day – civil rights, mass transportation, water pollution, poverty, urban renewal. These are problems that cannot be solved by any single group of our society, but by the cooperative effort of many dedicated groups.


“As an example of an area where much remains to be done, let’s look at education. I mentioned that business support of education now amounts to nearly $1,000,000 per day. This is an enormous outlay, and one of which the business community is justifiable proud. But simply turning over a check to his favorite school or college does not end the businessman’s responsibility to education. He needs to take an interest in how the money is spent. He often does serve on governing boards to help the educational institution utilize its resources effectively. But the businessman can and should participate in many other ways to help our schools and colleges do a better job of educating America’s most important resource – our many millions of younger people.


“I realize there are some in the academic profession who believe that education is the proper concern of the faculty alone – that outsiders of any kind, including businessmen, should not attempt to influence the educational process. There is a great deal of tradition begin this view and in the main it has some merit. Nevertheless, I firmly believe there are many areas in which business people can properly and effectively make constructive contributions to the educational process. They can serve as lecturers in fields of their competence. They can provide consulting opportunities and temporary jobs for professors which reflect back in the professor’s classroom to the benefit of the student…I see nothing wrong – in fact, I see much benefit – when businessmen as well as other citizens take a constructive interest in the educational process at all levels.”


Packard acknowledges that business firms have focused a great deal of time and money on colleges and universities, and he asks the question “But what of the fifty percent of our younger people who will never get to college? These people, many of whom are employable and certainly trainable, are in many cases being shunted off into the wings. As Peter Drucker, the noted business writer and lecturer, has pointed out, there is a real danger that our country will be divided by the “paper curtain” of the college diploma. This is a political and social danger – and I think an economic danger. It certainly is, or should be, the concern of every business leader to create opportunities for the non-college graduate and to see that he is not considered an object of charity. It seems, then, that it should be a concern of businessmen to work with educators at all levels of our school system – from the first grade on up – to see that we are getting the most for our educational dollar and to help teachers and administrators with the enormous job which rests on their shoulders.


“It has been pointed out that the business leader, in attempting to improve the quality of our society, is sometimes confronted with conflicting pressures. On one hand is the responsibility to his stockholders and employees to optimize profits. On the other hand, his efforts to upgrade the social environment may, in fact, penalize profits.


“Actually, in my judgment there is little conflict between a corporation’s social responsibility and its economic responsibility to is stockholders. And what little conflict exists is focused on the short term, rather than the longer, broader gauged view of return-on-investment.


“While stockholders expect the corporation to earn a profit today, they also should expect it to create and enhance an environment in which it can continue to earn a profit tomorrow.


“In the course of these remarks I have emphasized that business has come a long way from the laissez faire, profit-motivated attitude which prevailed at the turn of the century. But I don’t wish to imply that freedom of business decision and profit making are no longer important. These, in fact, remain the mainspring of our entire economic system. The myriad decisions necessary for a vigorous, growing economy cannot be effectively made from a central authority. Rather they must be formulated within the business community itself, operating in the framework of a free and competitive market.


“It is my firm conviction that this same freedom of decision by business management is a powerful force in overcoming the great social problems confronting America. Legislation can provide a guide to social betterment, and action groups may add to the incentive, but the real progress comes from the day-to-day decisions of those people directly involved. To a very large extent these are the thousands of business leaders throughout the country.


“But social progress is impossible without economic progress; therefore social progress will be made only if we continue to have a healthy, growing economy. In our free enterprise system, economic health and vitality are, in the final analysis, determined and measured by profit. Today we consider profit not just as a return on the investment made in a business, but as the best single measure of the contribution a business makes to the society in which it exists. And the profit a business makes is, in the final analysis, the sole source of its strength to grow, to provide more and better jobs, to do its share in helping to create a better life for its employees, for its customers, and for the public-at-large, as well as for those people who invest and risk their money in the business.


“Business has come a long way in evolving from a strictly economic institution into a powerful, constructive institution working for the cause of social betterment. This evolution has been encouraged by Government action. It has been advanced by the pressures of unions and public opinion. It has been implemented by the development of asocial conscience among business leaders. Perhaps you would prefer to describe it simply as the development of an enlightened self-interest in the business community However you may wish to describe it, whatever the motivating forces behind it, I am convinced that it is one of the most important pillars of the social progress which we all hope to achieve as we more on into the future.”


10/25/65, Letter to Packard from J. R. Smiley, President, University of Colorado, inviting him to be their1966 American Heritage Lecturer.

10/27/65, Letter to Packard from William H. Baughn, Dean, School of Business,  expressing the hope that Packard will be able to participate in the American Heritage Lecture Series.

10/29/65, Copy of a letter from Packard to J. R. Smiley wherein Packard says he is leaving on a trip and will let them know if he can participate in two weeks.

11/16/65, Copy of a letter from Packard to J. R. Smiley saying he has decided he can

participate in the Lecture Series.

11/23/65, Letter to Packard from J. R. Smiley expressing appreciation on hearing Packard will be able to speak, and suggesting dates.

1/12/66, Letter to Packard from William H. Baughn discussing possible dates.

1/17/66, Copy of letter from Packard to William H. Baughn agreeing on date of May 6 and saying he will discuss business management.

1/26/66, Letter to Packard from William H. Baughn requesting the title of Packard’s talk when convenient.

2/25/66, Copy of letter from Margaret Paull to William H. Baughn enclosing photo, biography, and giving title of Packard’s speech as “Business as a Social Institution.:

3/1/66, Letter to Margaret Paull from William H. Baughn thanking her for the above information.

4/11/66, Letter to Packard from Maurice, Label, enclosing the program for the May 6 American Heritage Lecture. The program is included.

4/15/66, Letter to Packard from William H. Baughn discussing travel arrangements.

4/18/66, Copy of letter from Packard to William H. Baughn discussing travel arrangements.

4/20/66, Letter to Packard from William H. Baughn discussing dinner arrangements.

4/25/66, Letter to Packard enclosing a copy of an article to be printed in Newsweek Magazine titled “What Americans Really Think of Business.

5/11/66, Copy of letter to David Kirby of HP from Robert S, Dunham, Editor University News Service, discussing printing of Packard’s speech in the Colorado Quarterly.

3/24/66, Printed pamphlet containing a speech by George Champion, Chairman of the Board, Chase National Bank, titled “private Enterprise and Public Responsibility in a Free Economy.

5/6/66, Printed program of the School of Business Business-Alumni Conference to be held on May 6 and 7.



Box  3, Folder 4General Speeches


June 2, 1966. Acceptance, Hoover Medal, Stanford Alumni Associates, New York City


6/2/66, Typewritten text of Packard’s comments on receiving this award, with some handwritten notations by Packard.


Packard speaks primarily of Herbert Hoover, saying that “This medal has special significance for me because I had the great fortune to become well acquainted with Herbert Hoover during the last few years of his song and fruitful life.


“He was devoted to Stanford, to education and to scholarship in the highest sense of the word. He was a Stanford trustee for 50 years. He founded the Stanford Business School and made many important contributions to Stanford during his long term of service as a trustee. On several occasions he told me that he considered the establishment of the Hoover Institution on the Stanford campus as the most important work of his lifetime.

“Most people, particularly in this country, thought of Herbert Hoover as a dedicated conservative and a staunch supporter of free enterprise and what he referred to as rugged individualism. These things he believed in and stood for. But he was first and above all a practical idealist and a humanitarian.


“He saw so much human suffering he desperately wanted the future to be better than the past. It was for this reason he placed great hope in this institution he founded at Stanford. He hoped that scholars, by studying the lessons of his contemporary times contained in the vast collection of documents he assembled in his institution, would be able to point the way to a better future for the world. Many of us are working to expand the role of the Hoover Institution at Stanford because we share his aims and hopes.”


“When speaking of his profession – engineering – he emphasized its social benefits. He spoke of the “unending stream of goodness from engineering – jobs and homes for men.” He said, “engineering elevates the standard of living and adds to the comports of life.”


“ Mr. Hoover’s to devotion to the welfare of mankind stemmed, no doubt, from his Quaker upbringing and it encouraged him to spend the last 50 years of his life in public service. Time and again his high motives called similar response from those who knew and worked with him As Food Administrator in World War I, he relied largely on voluntary cooperation from the business community…. In accepting President Wilson’s appointment Mr. Hoover responded saying, “I hold strong to the view that while large powers will be necessary in a minority of cases, the vast majority of the producing and distributing elements in the country are only too willing and anxious to serve.”


Packard describes Hoover as “…a warm, philosophical man with a good sense of humor. He loved to sit around after dinner and tell stories….Often these stories would get around to fishing which was his great hobby.”


“The importance of this event today is not that I am the recipient of this medal – rather it is that the Herbert Hoover Medal established by the Stanford Alumni Association will serve year after year, to recall for the benefit of new generations, the wisdom and teachings of one of the great men of the twentieth century. With the increasing trend in America toward socialism, toward a welfare sate – with the growth of the new radical left infesting our universities – and other forces striking at the traditional pillars of the American society, we need to preserve as a stabilizing element Herbert Hoover’s kind of practical idealism, his respect for the individual and the contributions an individual can make in an environment of freedom, his kind of devotion to human welfare. If the tradition of the Herbert Hoover Medal contributes to this end, it will serve a worthy purpose regardless of such honor as may be bestowed on the recipients.”


6/2/66, Text of speech handwritten by Packard.6/2/66,

6/2/66,  Newspaper clipping covering speech.

6/2/66, Stanford University News Service release on speech.

6/66, Clipping from Stanford Observer covering speech.

1/11/66, Letter to Packard from Lewis L. Fenton, Stanford Alumni Association following up on a previous conversation about Packard having been selected to receive the fourth Herbert Hoover Medal, and discussing possible dates.2/3/66, Copy of letter from Packard to Lewis Fenton discussing dates.

2/11/66, Letter to Packard from Robert Pierce with further discussion of dates.

3/24/66, Letter to Packard from Lyle M. Nelson enclosing a copy of speeches made at the Herbert Hoover Medal award ceremony in 1965.

5/2/66, Copy of letter to Bill Hewlett from Roger Lewis of the Alumni Association inviting him to the award ceremony.

5/10/66, Letter to Packard from H. H. Buttner [HP Director], congratulating  Packard on the award and telling him he will be at the luncheon.

6/2/66, Lists of invitees and acceptances.

6/9/66, Copy of letter from Packard to Roger Lewis thanking him for serving as host at the Hoover luncheon.

6/3/66, Handwritten letter from Thomas Martzloff to Packard asking for the name of a book Packard had referred to previously.

6/9/66, Copy of letter from Packard to Richard C. McCurdy thanking him for serving as host at the Hoover luncheon.6/9/66, Copy of letter from Packard to Tom Martzloff  sending him a copy of a publication called Western Politica, published by a group of students at Stanford. Packard also mentions the Port Huron Statement, describing it as “a manifesto of the Students for a Democratic Society.”

6/6/66, Letter to Packard from James C. Haugh congratulating him on the award.

6/9/66, Copy of letter from Packard to James Haugh expressing his appreciation for Mr. Haugh’s support on behalf of Stanford.

6/22/66, Letter to Packard from John L. J. Hart sending an enclosure which is not named.

6/23/66, Copy of letter from Packard to John L. J. Hart thanking him for the clipping and saying he looks forward to seeing him at the “Grove”.

7/6/66, Copy of letter from Packard to the Stanford Alumni Association c/o Lewis Fenton expressing his appreciation for the award. Packard says “This recognition will give me great encouragement to continue to help our University toward the standards of excellence which will make all alumni proud of their Alma Mater.”

7/21/66, Letter to Packard from Robert M. Golden, President Stanford Alumni Association, extending an invitation to Packard to participate in any Alumni Association activities, and in particular mentioning the new camp on Fallen Leaf Lake.

Many letters of regret that they could not make the award luncheon, or of congratulation`.



Box 3, Folder 5 – General Speeches


September 17, 1966, Industrial Development of Colorado: Opportunities and Problems. Loveland Chamber of Commerce Industrial Days Banquet.


9/17/66, Typewritten text of speech with handwritten notations by Packard.

Saying that HP first opened a plant in Colorado seven years ago, Packard tells his audience that the coming to Colorado “has been a very good decision for our company. I hope you also feel it was a good decision for Colorado – and for Loveland and Colorado Springs, where our plants are located.


“Both of our divisions in Colorado have prospered, and we believe they will continue to do so. They have done well because we were fortunate to have, from the very beginning, a competent group of people to establish and manage these divisions.


“These divisions have done well because Colorado provides an excellent environment for a technologically-oriented industry like ours.”


Packard also refers to the “splendid help and cooperation we have received from so many people throughout the state.”


Saying that “Colorado has been eminently successful in attracting new industry over the past few years”, Packard says he “would like to pass along a few thoughts about the problems and opportunities of industrial development here in your state.”


Packard’s first point is that “the underlying purpose of industrial development for a state or a region is not just to improve and strengthen the economy, but also to contribute to – and improve if possible – the social environment of the area.


The main objective of industrial development is to make a region a better place for all of its citizens. Now, this is a difficult problem in practice because it involves the interests and aspirations of many people, and these often come into conflict. But it is important that these diverse interests and aspirations be recognized and dealt with by everyone involved.”


Packard acknowledges that many changes have come to Loveland following the arrival of Hewlett-Packard. :”There is more traffic,. There are new pressures on schools. Many new houses have been built. Business activity, particularly service type business, has expanded.


“We hope the changes that can be attributed to our being in the area have been, in balance, good for the community. I am certain there are some who would prefer to have Loveland the way it was before -–or at least those who look upon some aspects of this rather substantial growth as not all for the better.” Packard quotes John Gardner, the U.S. Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, as saying in reference to a changing world that “It’s perfectly safe to be nostalgic about the world we left behind us. It’s gone forever. We have no choice but to try to make the world of the future the kind of world we want, the kind of world we think is worth living in.”


“Industrial development affects not just the economy of an area, but the social environment as well. It provides strong motivation for change – for many kinds of change.


“This makes a strong case for the importance of long range planning by any community seeking to expand its economic base by attracting business and industry. Long range planning of the entire community or area in all its aspects is an absolute necessity to guide growth accelerated by new industries attracted to the area. Even with good planning, implementation is difficult and things don’t always turn out the way we hope. Planning and its implementation in the right direction is difficult because there are many interests involved and they are often in conflict to some degree, at least.”


Saying that “Good planning requires imagination…and leadership.” Packard points out some of the many questions that must be given consideration: “Careful thought has to be given to what the community should be like ten or twenty years ahead. The plan should be based on a thorough understanding of what the community hopes it will be when and if the industrial development program is completed. The existing pattern of the community is bound to be affected. What will the new pattern be? Is the industrial complex to be integrated from residential sections?  What are the ultimate traffic patterns? How are the schools, shopping areas, recreational facilities related to industrial areas?”


The uncertainties of business make it difficult for companies to predict the future and this “demands that community-industry planning be flexible, cooperative, and continuous. We encourage our divisions to cooperate closely with the people in their communities with the hope that their help will be constructive in encouraging sound long-range planning for the benefit of the entire community and in carrying out those plans on a year-to-year basis. We want to make a meaningful contribution in this direction here in Colorado. If you feel there is more we can do in any area, I hope you will tell us so.


“I say this not in a sense of high-minded idealism – I say it from a hard-nosed business viewpoint. Our company will be more successful in Colorado of Colorado is a better place to live, to raise families, to provide a proper environment for people to achieve their personal aspirations. Today, more than ever before, the success of a company is determined by its people. If they are capable, enthusiastic about their work, enthusiastic about where they live, their success working together in a business enterprise is most likely to be assured. This has become more apparent to the business community in recent years as an important ingredient in a successful enterprise.”


In the past, Packard says, “prime attraction for industry to Colorado has been natural resources. The economy of your state has been built on mining, agriculture, limbering, smelting and refining, and of course, tourism. All of these are almost entirely dependent on Colorado’s great natural resources….There has been no large pool of skilled labor, no mass market, nor low-cost transportation to mass markets.


“However, in recent years the door has been opened to a new and great opportunity for Colorado. This opportunity stems from the development of what are often called knowledge-based industries. This type of industry has changed the traditional ground rules for plant locations. Because it is less dependent on raw materials and energy sources, it can be more flexible in choosing a location. It measures site selection by other criteria, and it is this that provides the opportunity for industrial expansion in Colorado.”


Following this thought, Packard suggests that “It might be interesting to review what we in Hewlett-Packard consider to be the primary considerations for the selection of a new plant location for our company. Other companies might have different areas of emphasis, but I believe they would generally have the same criteria on their lists.


“The first of these is that of living conditions. That is, a desirable community and region in which people can live…Colorado is a good place to live. It has an excellent climate, many attractive residential communities, good government, and a good public school system. These assets are attractive to people, They should be nurtured and improved. Unfortunately they can be deteriorated or destroyed by unplanned, too-rapid growth. I would thus again emphasize the importance of  sound planning directed toward keeping an attractive residential character in your cities and towns. This is not inconsistent with industrial development, but complementary to it.


“The development of large urban centers with industry concentrated in unattractive surroundings, people driving on crowded highways to go to work every day, should, in by view, be discouraged whenever possible.”


Packard tells of a recent article in the U.S. News & World Report magazine which included information gained in Loveland. “…The article posed some of the issues we are talking about here tonight – that is, the almost overwhelming problems of the megalopolis., including population, traffic, pollution, crime, and costs. It then presented the views of a number of industry representatives supporting the position that industry can find a home, indeed a very pleasant home, in many smaller communities through the country.


“Our feelings on this subject were reported in some detail, and certainly reflect our satisfaction with living and working in Loveland and Colorado Springs.”


“I would hope – with Colorado in its early stages of potential growth – that those of you who are undertaking to guide the future of the sate will place great emphasis on this concept. Colorado has the opportunity to become the model of industry-community development of the future. By careful planning you can avoid the disaster of over-concentration of people, air and water pollution, frustrating traffic, and other difficulties which have befallen many communities throughout the country.”


“A good establishment in higher education is a very important attraction to new industry, and has high priority on our list of criteria. You in Colorado have an excellent state university system, and a number of good private colleges and universities as well. This was an important consideration which attracted my company to Colorado. One out of every eight people Hewlett-Packard employs is a college graduate. They are scientists, engineers, management people living in a fast changing world. They must be dedicated to continuing education to keep abreast of their professions. They seek and need continuing formal education, and they thrive and produce best in an intellectual environment.”


“Good air transportation is essential for any industry operating on a national or international basis, and therefore another important consideration. Fortunately, you have in Denver one of the country’s major air terminals. This, too, was a decisive factor in Hewlett-Packard’s selection of Colorado. I hope you will remember that this is an important asset for the state’s industrial development program.”


“A fourth criteria, which is also of extreme importance to us, is the availability of the kind of people we need. In our line of work, we have an almost continuing need for highly trained and motivated engineering and scientific personnel. Ours is an industry of innovation. New and worthwhile electronic, chemical, and medical instrumentation is our life-blood.”


“We, along with many other companies of our type, also have need for a pool of skilled and unskilled labor. As our company grows, we have ever-expanding requirements for electronic technicians, machinists, secretaries, and others with similar special training.”


“It is also desirable to  locate in communities which have a high percentage of high school graduates. There are many activities in our manufacturing processes that can be undertaken by these people, following a short in-plant training period.”


“And finally, site selection is heavily influenced by the posture of local, regional, and state governments. We seek communities that have progressive, efficient local governmental organizations that encourage sound industrial development; organizations that can meet the challenges of community planning in the face of a changing environment. Se seek out those states that have demonstrated a sincere interest in business and industry. We are not seeking favors, only favorable attitudes.


“Once established, we expect to be a community neighbor for a long time. We would hope, therefore, that immediate favorable attitudes demonstrated by the region and the state would be extended for many years into the future. Needless to say, this relationship is a two-way street, and we would expect to conduct our business in a manner consistent with the policy of being a good neighbor.


“Let me say again, we are very pleased that our company came to Colorado. Let me also say that I believe all of you deserve a great deal of credit for the industrial development which has taken place over the last few years in Colorado. I suspect many who are working to encourage more industry to come here are disappointed that the progress is sometimes slower than you hope for. It seems to me progress may sometimes be slower that desired – especially if you are careful and selective in what you do.


“On this point I would suggest much caution against haste. It has been proposed, for example, that communities should issue tax free bonds to offer special inducements for an industry to come to the community. This, in by view, is a very hazardous procedure. Some communities in the south have done this to build plants for an industry, only to find that after a few years the business fails, or for some reason has to move elsewhere. The community is then left to pay off the bonds with no industry to help.


“I hope you will not adopt this procedure here in Colorado. If the attraction you have is not sufficient to encourage the industry to come under normal business procedures, you are probably better off without it. Artificial inducements encourage poor decisions for both the industry and the community and should be avoided in most cases.


“”I am very pleased to have had this opportunity to be here with you tonight. I have enjoyed seeing many of my old friends, as well s the many people here who have become new friends with our company’s involvement in Colorado. I hope you consider the Hewlett-Packard Company an important partner in the future progress of Colorado. We will do our best to justify your confidence and your faith in the industrial future of your state.”


9/17/66, Copy of typewritten “excerpt” from this speech

6/23/66, Copy of letter from Packard to Mark W. Cordell, Manager Loveland Chamber of Commerce. Packard confirms he will talk at the Industrial Days Banquet in Loveland on September 17th.

7/17/66, Letter to Packard from Mark Cordell,  giving details of the banquet day.

8/5/66, Copy of letter to Dave Kirby from Paul Rice, President First National Bank, Loveland, CO,  inviting the Kirby’s to the dinner.

9/27/66, Letter to Packard from John R. McKeown, saying he enjoyed Packard’s talk.

9/21/66, Letter to Packard from Carl N. DeTemple, Secretary Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry. Congratulating Packard on speech and asking for a copy.

9/30/66, Copy of letter from David Kirby to Carl DeTemple sending a copy of Packard’s speech.

Box 1, Folder 27 – HP Management


January 12, 1966, Management Conference, Monterey


1/1/66, No agenda is included, but some brief notes in Packard’s handwriting is in the folder:


Goal 9%

Mfg. Div 23%


Getting Business 10%

Growth 16% for 1966

How we get there

New Products

Better Mousetrap theory

3/31/66, A letter from Cort Van Rensselaer to Department heads sharing feedback from     discussion groups at the Jan. 12. conference.

1/19/66, Agenda for a “Little Monterey” meeting to share discussions with a broader         audience.

1967 – Packard Speeches

Box 3, Folder 6 – General Speeches


March 31, 1967, Comments on Opportunities Industrialization Center West (OICW),

Palo Alto, CA


It is not clear who the audience was to whom Packard was speaking, however HP was a strong supporter of OICW and these remarks, although brief, give an emphatic response to some negative reports that had been made in the community.



3/31/67, Copy of typewritten text of Packard’s comments


“Since it was organized in 1965,” Packard says, “OICW has created and conducted well-managed, effective job training programs geared to the specific needs of Peninsula business and industry. It has received, and continues to merit, the enthusiastic support of all segments of our community.


“Through its emphasis on self-help, it has enabled hundreds of unemployed and under-employed people on the Peninsula to obtain worthwhile jobs and to bring hope, confidence and dignity to themselves and to their families.


“Our company, as well as many other firms in the area, has hired several OICW graduates, and we intend to hire more. We find these people capable, industrious, and able to make an important contribution to the community’s growth and progress.


“It is gratifying to note that throughout local industry there is a growing appreciation and endorsement of OICW. Many firms are pledging increasing financial support to the program, are contributing equipment and teaching skills, and are broadening job opportunities for its graduates.


“As with any positive, energetic movement, OICW has gathered a few critics along the way. Several of us in industry have recently investigated and evaluated its criticisms. We find that these are not based on fact but on fancy. They are a product of negativism and questionable motive. It is regrettable that not everyone in our community approaches important social problems in a positive, constructive manner. On the other hand, there is ample evidence that the overwhelming majority of people who are directly exposed to OICW heartily endorse its principles and programs.


“The beauty of OICW is that it works. It represents accomplishment, not promise; hope, not despair; affirmation, not protest; action, not apathy. It is a vital, moving force in the betterment of our community and as such, deserves our continuing interest and support.”



Box 3, Folder 7 – General Speeches


October 9, 1967, Dedication of Lou Henry Hoover Building, Hoover Institution, Stanford Alumni and Friends, Hoover Institution


10/9/67, Typewritten copy of Packard’s speech,


“I am pleased to be able to participate in the dedication of the Lou  Henry Hoover Building. This is an important occasion for the Hoover family, I know, to have their mother – as well as their father – honored here at Stanford and remembered by this beautiful building.


“The occasion is also an important and memorable one for many of Herbert and Lou Henry Hoover’s friends and admirers a number of whom have helped to make this building possible. From among these, I would like to say a word about two.


“Mr. Jremiah Milbank, because of his close friendship with and great admiration for Mr. And Mrs. Hoover over the past forty years, has been generous to Stanford and the Hoover Institution on many occasions. It is indeed appropriate, and I must add very gratifying personally to me, that the main reading room in the Hoover Tower is being renovated and will be hereafter known as the Jeremiah Milbank Room. Mr. Milbank attended many Advisory Board meetings of the Institution with Mr. Hoover in that room, and I know The Chief would have been very pleased that Jerry Milbank’s name will be permanently inscribed there.


“I am sorry to tell you that Mr. Milbank’s health is so uncertain that he cannot be with us today. We are honored, however, by the presence of his son, Jeremiah Milbank, Jr.


“About sixty years ago, a penniless and virtually illiterate Serbian youth named Todor P9lich arrived in Los Angeles. He learned English – and through hard work and no small measure of innate ability – he became a successful businessman. His two sons graduated from Stanford, and both played on the football team.


“ Mr. Polich came to admire Herbert Hoover and what he stood for and what he believed in, and I, in turn, have been a great admirer of Mr. Polich and of his accomplishments.


“Through his generosity, Mr. Todor Polich has helped make the Lou Henry Hoover Building possible, and I am certain that both Mr. And Mrs. Hoover would have been very proud to know that he main seminar room in the Lou Henry Hoover Building will carry his name.


“Our dedication today is not only an important event to commemorate the memory of Lou Henry and Herbert Hoover, and to acknowledge those who have given so unselfishly in their tribute to them. The event also has significance in the progress of Stanford University.


“The Hoover Institution here on the Stanford campus has become one of the strong and prominent segments of this University. The books, documents, and archives of the Institution constitute a significant proportion of the University’s library collection, and in fact have contributed tremendously to the nation wide prestige of the Stanford Library.


“The Institution also has become an important center of scholarly research, study, and publication on subjects which have great significance in these troubled times. Both Mr. and Mrs. Hoover placed great hope that this Institution would serve well in man’s continuing search for a better world. That is also the hope of a great university.


“In many ways Lou Henry and Herbert Hoover reflected the tradition of Stanford. They combined a love of scholarship with a dedication of service to their fellowman. I have often marveled at their accomplishment in the translation of Agricola’s De Re Metallica.


“Lou Henry Hoover’s involvement in help for young people was extensive throughout her lifetime, and Herbert Hoover set the finest example for young people who would seek to serve their fellowman in a career of public service. In Mr. Hoover’s case, it began with his relief work, continued with numerous assignments under five Presidents, and as president himself.


“Nevertheless, he always stoutly maintained that the private sector – the professions and the private business establishment – make the most important contributions to both the social and economic progress of the world.


“Every student should read his statements about his profession of engineering.


“It is a great profession,” he said, “There is the fascination of watching a figment of the imagination emerge through the aid of science to a plan on paper. Then it moves to realization in stone or metal or energy. Then it brings jobs and homes to men. Then it elevates the standards of living and adds to the comforts of life. That is the engineer’s high privilege.”


“If this is not enough to appeal to the socially oriented student of today, Mr. Hoover also pointed out that “from works of engineering, new laws and regulations have to be make and new sorts of wickedness curbed He, the engineer, is also the person who really corrects monopolies and redistributes national wealth.”


“Herbert Hoover also had something to say which might help enlighten those students who look with disdain on business as a career. He was a businessman as well as an engineer, and during the last fifty years of his life, which he spent in public service, he had many dealings with the business community. He recognized that the vast majority of businessmen are not motivated by selfish interests. As Food Administrator during World War I he relied largely on voluntary cooperation of the business community in solving the many problems of maintaining an adequate supply and distribution of essential foodstuffs to mount a successful war effort.


“In accepting President Wilson’s appointment, he responded by saying, “I hold strongly to the view that while large powers will be necessary for a minority of cases, the vast majority of the producing and distributing elements of the country are only too willing and anxious to serve.”


“In his administration of this program, there were great and serious difficulties. Most of these were solv4d, however, because the business community rose above their selfish interests under his leadership.


“His leadership toward a higher ethic in business affairs continued as he took charge of the Department of commerce and introduced many programs in which the business community cooperated to better serve the public welfare.


“It is an image widespread among students, and professors too, that service to humanity is not a common characteristic in the world of commerce and industry. Such an image was perhaps justified during the early decades of the 20th Century.


“Fortunately, during the last three or four decades, the social attitudes in the world of commerce and industry have undergone a momentus (sic) change for the better. Mr. Hoover’s influence, by way of example and by way of his constructive thought and action throughout his many years of public service, have had no small effect on contributing to this higher ethic in the administration of business and industry.


“I am particularly pleased, therefore, that today’s dedication of the Lou Henry Hoover Building recognizes the expanding role of the Hoover Institution in the affairs of this University.


“It is my hope that this new building will help the Hoover Institution serve well both faculty and students in their scholarly studies – in their search for new understanding, and new answers, to the perplexing questions of today and tomorrow.


“It is my hope also that this new building will serve as a continual reminder – to present and future generations of students and faculty – that Stanford has a great heritage. It is a heritage worthy of preservation, and one reflected in many ways in the lives of Lou Henry and Herbert Hoover.


“In particular, this heritage includes a tradition in which the University and its graduates have served their fellowman in the practical as well as the intellectual affairs of the world. It also includes a tradition of strong involvement in – and commitment to – the principles of free and private enterprise as well as public and social service.


“I know my hopes in these matters are shared by the vast majority of the Stanford family, as well as those who have made the building possible.


“On their behalf it is my privilege and honor to resent the Lou Henry Hoover Building formally to the President and Board of Trustees of Stanford University.”



10/9/67, Copy of speech handwritten by Packard.

Undated,  Handwritten note from Packard to his secretary Margaret Paull, asking her to arrange to have copies of his speech go out with the Alumni letter.

Copy of the printed invitation to the dedication ceremony.


Box 1, Folder 2 – Stanford


 January 6, 1957,  Function of the Trustee of the Privately Endowed University, Stanford Business School, Palo Alto


1/6/57 Handwritten speech given by Packard at Stanford’s Japanese Seminar.


He goes into considerable detail describing how the Board of Trustees operates at Stanford. He describes the history of private universities in the US saying, “Although private individuals started the institutions, in most cases they received support from the local government during the early phases of their history. Soon, however, the administrators, particularly those on the academic side, found it desirable to be entirely free from political influence and so very early divorced themselves from state control. They remain independent and privately administered to a large degree today.”

Speaking of the contribution of private universities to the country Packard says, “Although the public institutions outnumber the private universities and are proportionately much better supported, the private universities exert a tremendous influence in the United States and provide most of the leadership both in the academic and professional areas. for example, in a rating recently made by a large American newspaper, seven out of the top ten universities were privately supported. In the sixty largest business concerns in the United States two-thirds of the officers and directors are graduates of or attended one of these seven leading privately endowed universities. The responsibility of the privately supported university therefore is one of leadership, as even the proponents of publicly supported universities recognize”

Packard describes the organization of the Board of Trustees, its responsibilities as well as limitations placed on it by the founding grant. He covers the work of several committees one of which is the Committee on Investments. “One of the very important responsibilities of the board of trustees is the preservation of the endowment funds that were originally given to the university by the Stanfords and of the funds that have been given subsequently by other donors.”  Packard goes on to list the types of investments held and the percentage each represents of the whole $43 million fund.

Packard says that the Committee on Finance “is responsible for overall financial policy, as well as for day to day financial operation. For example, its most important job is to review the annual budget of the university in order to recommend it to the board of trustees for approval.” The Committee on Buildings and Grounds, Packard says, “assumes responsibility for maintenance of the physical facilities of the university and studies plans for expansion, new buildings,  rehabilitation of older buildings, and all of the things having to do with the physical plant with a view to making specific recommendations to the board of trustees.”

Packard says the board of trustees is less active in the area of academic affairs and that  “The control of academic affairs is centered in the president of the university (as distinct from the president of the board of trustees) and the faculty. In the selection of the president of the university, however, the board of trustees has an important influence on academic affairs because the president, in principle, provides the leadership and, to a large degree, determines the academic caliber of the university.”

Packard gives a detailed description of Stanford’s fiscal budget listing income and expenditures. Endowment income, he says, “is a rather small portion of the total amount of available money. …Generally this money is contracted for the purpose of some specific research in a particular area.


2/30/57 Letter from Oswald Nielsen, Professor of Accounting, sending Packard a   typewritten copy of the above speech asking that Packard make any corrections.

1/24/57 Letter from Gail Saxon (Packard’s secretary) sending the draft back to Professor   Nelson with minor changes.


Box 1, Folder 28 – HP Management


January 11, 1967 – Management Conference, Monterey


1/11/67, Typewritten comments prepared by Packard to be given at the conference.

Packard congratulates everyone on the good things done during 1966, but says he wants to talk about areas “where we have done, in my opinion, a disgracefully poor job.”

One example”, he says, “is our management of inventories and accounts receivable.” Dave goes on to say that the problem with receivables started when responsibility was assigned to the sales offices.


Dave shows some slides on both inventories and receivables concluding that “this is poor management.” “To put it bluntly – I submit to you that a division manager who is unable to keep his inventories in line better than some of you did in 1966 may be miscast in his job. And, the same applies to an area marketing manager and his receivables. I hope a word to the wise will be sufficient.”


“Now all of this has to do with the proper management of our resources – and it goes back to one of our basic objectives – and a very important one – to keep our corporate -wide profits at a rate which will generate resources sufficient for us to finance our growth. It follows logically that we must utilize these resources efficiently. Let’s look at our performance over the last few years in this respect, as shown in Figure 4.” He shows a slide which shows that growth in net worth has not kept up with growth in shipments. He concludes the answer is to increase profits. “It seems to me”, he says, “that any division which is in the ten to twenty million dollar area of sales, should be expected to generate a profit adequate to finance its own growth, and provide a little extra for seed. Here again, I hope a word to the wise is sufficient.”


Dave says he has some specific suggestions for consideration:

“First, making a profit adequate to support your own growth is primarily a matter of attitude – you can do it if you decide it is that important – and as far as I am concerned, from here on it is going to be that important.


“Second, it is highly dependent on pricing policy. The main opportunity we have to raise our profit performance is to develop new products good enough to justify an adequate profit. They must be priced accordingly, and as I have said before, you have to find new product projects which will generate a substantial volume when proceed to produce an above average profit. If you have development projects which are likely to give you products with large volume and below average profits, you better think about cutting them off – they won’t help you get your performance where it has to be. If you take business on an incremental basis, it had better be a small increment of hour total business, or you are in trouble before you start.


“The object of the game is to increase your profits at least as fast, but hopefully faster, than your growth in sales. You are likely to turn in better performance at a higher price level and a lower volume. If your growth in profits is not equal to your growth in volume, an increase in prices will have the effect of bringing them in line. Taking on incremental business will make this relationship move the wrong way.


“Third, the problem often starts at the design stage of a new product. If you design an instrument that has more components than its competitive product, or is more difficult to produce, even the most efficient manufacturing effort won’t bail you out.


“Fourth, if you don’t take a tough minded attitude about your people and their performance, you are sure to be in trouble. We have emphasized over the years, the importance of being fair to our people, and certainly we must be. But, this does not justify condoning poor performance by anyone in a management position. We cannot build a future for all the people in this company with mediocrity. We must demand excellence.


“Fifth, I do not believe we have done a good enough job in our planning. We have not developed an adequate, well considered strategy for what we want to do.


…….”The underlying strategy in our new product program must always be to make a contribution – to be ahead of, and better than, our competition.”

“Sixth, we are not yet doing a good job in every division in the transition from development to production. This, again, is as much a failure in planning as in implementation. Last year we had several new products put into production, and on the market, before they were ready to go. This is not good management. This is just floundering around. It wastes resources, as will as effort and every of people.”


Packard closes by asking that each division manager submit a written report to him on his strategy and plans for the future in specific detail to improve the performance of his group.

1/12/67, Typewritten pages by Dave Packard . He says that last night we looked at the BIG job we have to do. And now he invites all to take a look at our FIVE YEAR plans. Packard spends some time talking about opportunities in the medical and analytical areas and then moves on to the bigger picture:


“In addition to the medical and chemical markets, we  believe there will be a trend toward more automation and data handling in our traditional market. We have been working in systems at Dymec, and we have been developing many instruments which are programmable and produce data in digital form We have looked forward to a growing interest in fully automated instrumentation systems. the introduction of our Computer this year brings us closer to the capability of producing viable, fully automated instrumentation systems. We are not there yet, and I hope we can keep working on the interface problem between instruments produced by different division and with our Computer.


“I would summarize the outline of our over-all corporate strategy in regard to our markets and fields of interest as follows:

A. First to strengthen our position in our traditional field of electronic                    instrumentation.

1. Put more emphasis on instruments which make a real                                           contribution in this field.

2. Build a stronger position in automated instrumentation systems.

3. Keep up with latest technology, such as integrated circuits in our                                    new products.

B. Build a viable position in Medical instrumentation.

1. Put more emphasis on instruments which make a real                                           contribution in this field.

2. Build marketing capability to support the program.


3. Recognize  that the medical market is fragmented, and                                          concentrate our effort on the portion of this market where we have,                            or can expect to build a viable position.


D. Build a position in electronic instrumentation for Analytical Chemistry.

1. Place more emphasis and effort on areas where we can really                               make a contribution.


2. Build marketing capability to support program.


3. Be sure we keep close coordination and compatibility between                            marketing capability and new product program.

E. Work to bring and concentrate total corporate strength into these four                            field of activity.


Development programs, acquisitions, or other endeavors, which are not                  directed into these specific areas should by undertaken only with great                        caution.


The balance of the material in this folder is support papers for the conference



Box 1, Folder 29 – HP Management


June 12, 1967, Division Managers Meeting

1/12/67, Folder contains various supporting charts, spreadsheets, for the meeting


1968 – Packard Speeches

Box 3, Folder 8 – General Speeches


March 30, 1968. The Promise of America in Crisis, Challenge to the Leadership of the Communities, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce conference for business and industrial leaders, Palo Alto CA.

This conference, under the auspices of the Chamber of Commerce, was intended to generate discussion of possible solutions to the problem of the under employed, disadvantaged people, particularly those living in East Palo Alto \. Packard was asked to be the keynote speaker and participate in a panel discussion .


3/30/68, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech with many notations by him in his handwriting.


Packard mentions several problems facing America , Viet Nam,  the Mid-East monetary policy, inflation or the problems of the disadvantaged, saying it is hard to know which is the most serious, much less know how to solve them. However, with the disadvantaged he says “…we can do something here because this is where the problem is. I want to make some general observations about the problem and suggest several courses of action for your consideration here today. I believe we have the opportunity here in the mid-peninsula to develop an exemplary solution to this problem. It will require more effort and more involvement on the part of everyone, but I believe it can – indeed, it must be done.”


Referring to Federal support programs for the disadvantaged, Packard says “…criticism has ranged all the way from too little control to too much control.


“Evaluating the programs and their critics, there is no doubt that Federal involvement has been constructive – that in addition to such substantive contributions as have been made, the Federal Government has helped to catalyze the private sector of the American Society into concern and action.


“We have at least reached the point where every important institution in America – Government, School Church, foundation, Business, Industry, Labor – wants to help in solving the problem of the minorities. Their reasons may be different, their approaches to the problem may be different, but they are all concerned and genuinely want to help. The forgotten man in the minority culture of America is certainly no longer forgotten.”


However, Packard acknowledges that “…it does not follow that every person involved in each of these institutions is so committed. There are generations of prejudice to overcome, and this cannot be done quickly.


“With a problem so complex, underlaid (sic) with traditional attitudes, biases, emotions – and compounded by the simple fact that it takes time for people to change their views, and their ways, and their feelings, I see no hope for a quick solution – but I see every hope for a substantial and continuous improvement.


“Whether the rate and the substance of the improvement will satisfy all those involved is very doubtful. The probability is of more violence for some time to come. It is not just a probability, it is a certainty – almost as sure as day follows night. This distressing fact must not, however, limit our resolve to proceed with the job at hand; indeed it should strengthen our resolve to get ahead with the job.”


As to advocates of “Black Power” and separatism Packard refers to a quote attributed to Francis Bacon to the effect that :Knowledge is Power.” If that is what the Black Power leaders mean, I am with them. If, on the other hand, they mean power in terms of the primitive law of the jungle, they will only hinder progress and do their people a great disservice.


As to a separate Negro society there are pros and cons. There is a great human imperative to be in control of one’s destiny. This aspiration certainly translates to groups of people, encouraging people with common interests to band together in support of the common cause. Why not, then, encourage Negros (sic) to establish their own society, and let their destiny by determined by their own efforts? I think the answer to this is very simple. The white society in America has such a head start that the Negro would have a very difficult time if he did not share in the wealth and benefits of the American Society as a whole….The idea of a separate society is an emotional response. Though understandable, it is completely unrealistic.”


Focusing on the local problem, Packard says “The most important thing I can say is that I believe we have the opportunity to produce an exemplary solution to the problems of the disadvantaged right here in our own back yard. We have the resources – education, jobs, human understanding – in better measure than almost any community in the country. If we fail it is only because we lack the will.


“I am delighted that the Palo Alto Chamber has called this conference to study and attack these problems. I would like to suggest a number of propositions which I believe will help us move ahead in the job at hand.


#1. We must begin with the proposition that this job cannot be done without much more effort and involvement on the part of everyone. To put it squarely – every business, every industry, every union, indeed, every person must do more than has been done so far.


#2.  We must all understand that the job cannot be done over night. We must ask for a degree of patience from the people we are trying to help; we must insist on a high degree of urgency from everyone else in the community.


#3.  Because there are so many people interested we must do a better job of coordinating the efforts in this area. I hope from this meeting here today will come some action toward a better coordination of the effort of all the institutions and people who are involved.


#4. Because jobs are the foundation on which all else will be built, we must muster an all-out effort to get more of these people in meaningful jobs as soon as possible.


#5.  Although emphasis recently has been placed on finding jobs for the “hard core” unemployed and the “drop out” youth, we must not distort our judgment against those who have tried. Heads of families should have first priority, of course. Then high school graduates should be given preference on the theory that if a high school diploma in fact earns a job, there will be more high school diplomas.


#6. After these steps have been achieved – singly or simultaneously – ways must be found to employ more of the so called “hard core”. This will require considerable effort.


#7.  Although initial employment and training will require extra effort, in the long run achievement standards cannot be lowered. To lower standards will place the business firms at a competitive disadvantage, and reduce their ability to provide jobs for anyone in the future.


#8.  In addition to finding jobs with business and industrial firms in the area, encouragement should be given to the establishment and support of minority owned and managed firms. These firms will not only provide much-needed jobs, but will add to the confidence of minority people and their pride in their own ability.”


Packard hopes that “…every employer in the community will find a way to accommodate a larger proportion of disadvantaged people into his work force in the future than he has in the past. And I hope the unions will cooperate in this endeavor. This may mean changes in hiring standards. This certainly will require more understanding – more thoughtful training – more effort on everyone’s part. The name of this game is to extend yourself in firing and training, but not to lower your standards of job performance because that will jeopardize your competitiv3 position, and therefore the future success and growth of your company.


“I believe it is important for disadvantaged people seeking jobs to understand this very important economic fact of life. Business and industry do not create jobs; they provide the opportunity for people to work and produce something some one else wants. If the employees produce a superior product, more people will want the product and more jobs will be generated. If the employees produce an inferior product – or service – no one will want it, and that firm will have no more jobs. So, while private business can do a better of hiring and training undereducated under-trained people, private business cannot provide jobs for them in the long run unless standards of quality, production, and service are maintained that are necessary for the survival and success of the business.


Packard says he believes the government’s recent emphasis on employment of the “hard core” minority , while worthy, “overlooks some basic considerations. It is generally agreed that education is the most secure path to progress. Over the past few years, when these problems of minority unemployment have been brought into focus, there have been thousands of jobs available – for those with the right training and education. Clearly, more education would be of immense help in alleviating these problems. Sometimes I think this particular problem is a failure of our educational system more than anything else.


“While the problem is complex, one reaches the conclusion that motivation is a key factor. There is the question of the home surroundings and many other discouraging environmental factors, but it remains as a fact that any minority youngster can obtain a good education and be a success in the American Society if properly motivated.”


“It is important – very important – then as we seek to help those who have not made the grade, that we also encourage those who have. This says that we must put our first emphasis not in helping the drop outs, gut in helping those who have had the will and determination to get an education. To make sure the rewards for their effort are both real and visible.


“I hope, then, that we can find a way in this community to assure every Negro high school graduate, and every Spanish American high school graduate, that he or she will either have a good job opportunity or will have an opportunity to go on to college.”


“This matter is so vital that I hope the community can pup special emphasis on summer jobs for high school students. What better incentive could there be for a young person to work at his high school education than to know that by doing so he would be assured of a good summer job, or a good permanent job after graduation – or go to college.”


“While this and other efforts should reduce…and in the short run eliminate, this drop out problem…we have some short term considerations relating to drop outs.


“The drop outs of the past cannot be completely overlooked, even if we can keep them in school in the future. This suggests that business and industry should do what they can providing jobs, training and education to help bring some of these so-called “hard core” people back into the mainstream of American Society.”


Summing up Packard says “The order of priority providing jobs is then as follows:


# 1.  Those with a family to support, a home to maintain, because the home environment is the true foundation on which the future is built for every person – regardless of race, creed, or culture. I understand there are 641 families with dependent children numbering 2,036 on welfare. We certainly should be able to find that many jobs. Child care centers, transportation, welfare policies etc…..


#2.   Those who are taking advantage of the educational opportunities available to them. They deserve this recognition for their efforts and such recognition will provide a powerful incentive to motivate others to follow.


#3.  The so called “hard core” unemployed and the “drop outs”. Even though they have not availed themselves of educational and other opportunities, they deserve a second chance. In fact, for one reason or another, they may not even have had a first chance. It is probably not possible to get these people back in [the] educational system and here business and industry can help.


“I would hope we might, here in this area, provide job opportunities for all of these groups. If we can do so I believe it can demonstrate that Negros (sic), Spanish Americans and other disadvantaged groups are a part and parcel of American Society and can be counted on to do more than their share in helping us build a community with true equal opportunity for all. Each of you here today has a great responsibility and a great opportunity to help translate the American Dream from vision into reality.”




1/26/68 Letter to Packard from Joseph Ehrlich, confirming the agreement that Packard will be the keynote speaker at the conference sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce.

3/15/68, Letter to Packard from Rev. Carl A. Smith thanking him for agreeing to participate in the Conference of Business and Industrial Leaders. He attaches a copy of the program.

3/27/68, Internal HP memorandum to Packard from Ray Wilbur, VP Personnel, giving some background and thoughts on the program. He attaches a copy of a speech by John Gardner, former Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare.

3/27/68, Internal HP memo to Packard and Ray Wilbur from J. A. Barr, giving a progress on the project known as EPA Electronics, Inc.

4/2/68, Letter to Packard from Rev. Carl A. Smith expressing appreciation for Packard’s participation in the conference.

4/5/68, Copy of a letter from Packard to Joseph Ehrlich expressing the thought that the conference seemed to be worthwhile, but there remains “a problem of follow up.”

To do this Packard suggests a group be formed to contact local businesses individually.

Copy of an undated letter to Allan Brown from Joseph Ehrlich with a cc to Packard with some suggestions on steps to implement a plan.



Box 3, Folder 9 – General Speeches


April 19, 1968, Keynote Speaker, International Business Scene and Minority Race Problems, Rotary International of Northern California, Palo Alto CA


4/19/68, Typewritten copy of Packard’s speech – in outline format.


“So many interesting things – international scene. World in turmoil. Vietnam. Focus on what is U.S. role in world.


“…U.S. has had role in international leadership last two decades unsurpassed in history.


“Our leadership rehabilitated Europe.

“Japan position great economic strength and progress.


“Stabilized balance free world and Communist world.


“Here at home greatest prosperity. 20 billion GNP growth firsts quarter – 800 billion.


“In a year or two we add to our economy an increment equal to total economy of France or England.


“Amid prosperity – more of everything for everybody – even poor than any prior society.


“Greatest social turmoil in history of country. We are in midst of one of the great revolutions of history.

“Bad news – Good news


Pilot comes on speaker – Bad news – visibility zero. None of navigational instruments are working. We don’t know where we are. We don’t know where we are going.


Good news – 500 knot tail wind. Get there ahead of schedule.”


“With your permission comment about two aspects  of this great national crisis.

Monetary and fiscal crisis and relationship to World Trade.

Observation on minority problems.


“The crisis in United States monetary and fiscal affairs is simply the strength of the dollar – despite what the advocates of a gold standard say – the dollar is in fact the monetary standard of the free world. If the dollar should fail in this role, we would find ourselves confronted with a world-wide economic panic.


Undermine U. S. role in world leadership

Undermine ability to solve domestic problems


“Let me attempt to outline the problem in simple terms. In the years following the war, we spent billions of dollars overseas helping Europe – Japan – recover from the ravages of the war and in stabilizing the position of the Free World vs. Communist countries. These dollars were welcome abroad – many were returned to buy products from U.S.


“As Europe and Japan reached position of economic stability their need for dollars lessened. Yet we continued to pour billions more into the international monetary system. From 1958 to 1960 the average was 3.7 billion per year.


Aid – Military – Tourism


We get  some back – Merchandise trade


“Many countries simply had more dollars than they needed and they returned them to us in exchange for gold. The government became concerned – first voluntary program and other actions and reduced outflow but have been unable to bring to low enough balance.


“Agreements with banks to hold dollars


“We do not have enough gold to cover – raised price – economies of other free world dependent on confidence in dollar.


“We are reasonably safe as long as purchasing power of dollar in U.S. remains stable.


“Sly Fowler – money can be sound at home and in trouble abroad – but money cannot be sound abroad and in trouble at home – our economy too large


  1. Must control balance of payment problems


3.9 billion 1960

1.3  billion 1965

3.5 – 4 billion 1967


  1. Must get monetary and fiscal problems at home under control.


“What are elements of balance of payments problem?

1.   Vietnam

  1.  Other military commitments – We could get out of Europe – Creditability – Vietnam


  1. Tourism – 1 billion


  1. Merchandise trade balance


Trade balance


Dependent on two-way trade

U.S. industry is competitive abroad in many areas

Total exports from Calif. (?)

1.2  billion 1966  ¼ Agricultural


“In view of importance of our merchandise trade balance

International quota war would be disastrous

“Stability of dollar at home

“Federal deficits – inflation wage settlements

“When government asks us to support programs – important

“Cannot support Vietnam – war on poverty – space program


“Those of you who have influence with anyone in Washington should help

Tax increase will help




“Mail from home against taxes – for quotas – for more of everything


“Word about minority problems


“Must resolve our ultimate goal


“One nation indivisible – all blacks and all whites working together – equality and brotherhood for all or polarized black against white in peripheral strife


“Events of past two weeks may have increased polarization


“Difficulty compounded by subversive elements – aim not unity but destruction of our country


Confrontation of Black Student Union at Stanford

Sympathy with concern

Polarization – White Plaza event

Confrontation of Payton Jordan by Harry Edwards


“We are undertaking positive program. Has been underway


“Applicants increased three times in last several years


“Programs of assistance will be continued

“If Black Student Union leaders persist in efforts to isolate black from white at Stanford, it will defeat the purposes of the University.


“Administration, faculty, white students cooperating with black enable them to fully integrate into life of University.


“This is the problem for all of us who want to help in our areas of responsibility.


“Actions which will help integrate black people into structure of society with equality and brotherhood

“Difficult because subversive elements are in control in many areas – make sure you know who these people are in your community. Help the large group that deserves help.


“We are faced with some touchy problems

“ Understanding – and involvement – we can make progress.”





4/19/68, Outline of speech handwritten by Packard

1/23/68, Letter to Packard from Jack B. Power expressing appreciation for Packard’s participation in speaking at their luncheon. Says they expect about 500 to attend.

4/19/68, Printed copy of program of Rotary 30th annual conference

5/13/68, Copy of letter from Packard to Jack Power thanking for sending him some cuff links.



Box 3, Folder 10 – General Speeches


April 22, 1968, Congratulation to PG&E Scholarship Winners, PG&E  personnel and scholarship winners, San Francisco, CA


4/22/68, Typewritten text of speech.


Packard is speaking to an audience of high school students and he tells them he was “…thinking about what I might say of interest to you tonight and realizing that young people are properly concerned, or at least interested in what kind of a world their world will be, I tried to recall in my mind the state of the world 38 years ago when I was looking forward to graduation from high school in 1930. – Pueblo, Colorado –


“Radio broadcasting, which began in the early 1920s, was just coming into its own. One of my hobbies was amateur radio, and I had been building radios for a number of years. Many families in our neighborhood did not have a radio. Television was still some time away.


“Automobiles had become a major factor in our lives but many streets and highways were not yet paved.


“Lindbergh had made his famous flight across the ocean only a few years earlier. The airmail was coming into Pueblo in a two-place biplane from Denver. It was to be ten years before I made a cross country flight in a DC3 – it took nearly 24 hours. By comparison in the first three months of this year I have flown to New York 5 times, Europe once, Chicago 2 times, and a few other places like Boston, Washington, Dallas and Denver in between.


“Although our family was very healthy, an infection of any kind often required a week or more in bed. Pneumonia and other infections diseases were often fatal. No one dreamed that surgery would ever be possible, let alone the possibility of transplanting a heart or a kidney.


“There was no television, no radar, no garbage disposals, few plastics except celluloid and hard rubber. I remember hearing about a new plastic called bakelite when I was in high school. For the ladies there was no nylon though there were a few synthetic textile materials.


“I decided while I was in high school I wanted to be an engineer and I read all of the technical magazines I could obtain. The library in Pueblo had only about a dozen volumes on electricity and chemistry, all of which I read several times.


“We had heard of Einstein’s equation and the possibility of converting matter into energy, but no one dreamed it would be possible so soon I am sure we knew that fossil fuels were limited – there was talk about solar energy – but certainly the thought never crossed our young minds in those days that there would be unlimited energy in our lifetime which could be directed to unlimited good or unlimited evil.”


Packard tells of having been asked what the Hewlett-Packard Company will been doing ten years hence. He says he responded by saying that “10 years ago I could not have told you what we would be doing today, and I am unable to tell you what new products we will be showing our stockholders. I am certain, however, that there are just as many important things to be done today as there were 10 years ago, and I can say for sure …in 10 years there will certainly be more yet to be done, even though I can’t tell you just exactly what that will be.


And Packard tells his young audience that “Although much has been accomplished in the 38 years since I was your age, there is more knowledge – more ability – more resources – and the next 38 years are certain to be as challenging and as exciting for you as the past 38 have been for me.


“But you say yes there has been material progress and there will certainly be more – what about the other things – urban problems, riots – Vietnam – starvation of people in a world where food is thrown away or deliberately not produced. Has the world really made any progress in the past 38 years in these areas – or is it in fact in the worst condition in its history?”


Packard admits this is not an easy question to answer. “We know we can produce electricity more efficiently – we can make accurate measurements. We know people have more money – even the poor, and even after we allow for inflation. Whether more people are happier – whether better off, etc is hard to evaluate.”


Packard remembers the world of 1930 as “…reasonable calm and hopeful. There had been the crash in Wall Street – people lost jobs and things were very difficult, but I didn’t sense great despair. On the world scene there had been considerable progress in disarmament. There was the World Court – and after all, America had entered World War I to make the world safe for democracy. On closer examination, however, there was very much the same kind of turmoil all over the world then that there is today. There had been very bloody labor strife in Colorado a few years earlier. Two or three years later there were reports of Japanese military action in china. We began shortly to hear about a man names Hitler in Germany and Mussolini in Italy. I recall stories of the communists in Russia. The Bolsheviks going through a crowd and shooting on the spot any person who did not have callused hands and who was therefore not a working man.


“It is clear to me that in close examination there was just about as much turmoil in thee world in those days as there is today. We decry horrors of Vietnam, but World War II was no humane endeavor.


“There is however, one big difference. We read about these things in newspapers or in magazines. Some were on newsreels in the theaters, but we did not have on-the-spot television nowhere near the thorough news coverage. We simply were not anywhere near as aware of the social and political problems of the world as you young people are today. – We knew about them, but they seemed remote.


“As I think about these matters – and what has happened in these areas over the past 38 years – I believe there has been substantial progress. I am certain the world is better today than 38 years ago. Clearly there is great opportunity for more progress, and I am pleased that so many young people today are dedicated to help bring it about.


“I would hasten to add, however, there will always be an opportunity for improvement in human and social affairs – just as there will always be opportunity for scientific discovery, inventions and new works of engineering.


“I am afraid Robert Frost was right when he said there is only one thing in this world we can be certain about – there will always be conflict and there will always be change. The problem is: how to minimize the conflict and how to make the change constructive and substantial. That is of course precisely the problem we face in our civil rights – minority problem here in America.


“Packard tells the students that as they go on into life they “…will have some of their ideas challenged – there will be conflict in your mind – you will find new fields of knowledge available to you – what you make of it will be up to you.


“We hear much today about the generation gap. You are at the age where you don’t understand your elders – probably some of you don’t even understand your parents. I can assure you that is one thing which really has not changed very much. I remember vividly one of the greatest things about coming to Stanford for me was that I would have a chance to get away from home. I assure you after being away I soon wanted to get back – I decided my parents weren’t so bad after all.


“I learned a little secret somewhere along the line I would like to share with you. Whatever you may think of this older generation of yours, we desperately want you to succeed. When we criticize it is only in the hope we can help you avoid the mistakes we have made. In particular I want to say to each of you – if you ever need help, don’t hesitate to ask. The Chairman and the President of this company would be flattered and pleased if they had the opportunity to help you in any way that might be useful.


“And regardless of what you think about the older generation, you have a responsibility to them – to make the future better than the past. You have a responsibility to your parents to grow up to be a person they will be proud of. But as David Starr Jordan once said, the person above all who you have a responsibility to is the person you will be 10 – 2 — 30 – years from now.


“Good luck and God bless you.


4/22/68, Text of speech handwritten by Packard.

4/4/68, Letter to Packard from Robert H. Gerdes, Chairman of the Board, PG&E, inviting Packard to speak to the winners of college scholarships.4/10/68, Copy of letter from Packard to Robert Gerdes saying he will “see if he can find something to say to the group.”


4/11/68, Letter to Packard from Robert Gros  expressing appreciation that Packard has agreed to speak and giving details of the evening.




Box 3, Folder 11 – General Speeches


November 20, 1968,  Dinner speaker, Herbert Hoover Memorial Boys Club of Menlo Park, Leading Citizens Dinner, Palo Alto CA


11/20/68, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech.


Packard says this event has great significance to him: first, because he had the good fortune to know Herbert Hoover during the last few years of his life, and “I know he put the Boys’ clubs high on his list of priorities. And secondly, “…this Boys’ Club is making a great contribution to the improvement in the lot of young people of the black community in our area.”


Packard then says he would like to say a few things about Herbert Hoover – “for whom this Boys’ is named. “In doing so I am not unaware that Herbert Hoover was a conservative. Many of our friends on the campus today would call him a reactionary. Many of today’s students would reject him – even though they don’t understand what he really stood for.


“I am afraid also that many of the black power advocates in East Palo Alto would reject Herbert Hoover and what he stood for, but in the end I predict that the solution to our minority problems will come only from better understanding of and acceptance of the things Herbert Hoover believed.”


And Packard lists some things Hoover believed:

Conservative – referred to liberals as “those left wingers”

Was respected by both Republicans and Democrats, and friend of several presidents from both parties.


Hoover loved fishing and encouraged boys to fish.


“He thought it very important that boys be close to nature.”


Referring to Hoover’s feeling that we should work toward a “strengthening if vision, curiosity and patience” in the mind of boys, Packard says “What a great contribution to the troubled times of today more vision would bring. And patience – our young people of today seem possessed with the idea that there are instant solutions to everything. I am a great advocate of the idea that young people should learn something about the world before they try to reform it.”


“Herbert Hoover had great love for his country. He once expressed it this way:


“I was a boy with nothing and this magnificent country of ours gave me my education and my opportunity. After I had made my competence – fortunately rather early in life – I wanted in turn to do something for my country.”


“And he spent the last 50 years of his life in service to his country.”


Herbert Hoover was one of the great men of this century. He was the product and the examplification [sic] of what we call the Puritan ethic. The Puritan ethic involved a strict code of morality, a belief in religion….Many of these ideas are rejected today – by young people – by people in the black community – even by people in the churches who are searching for new answers


“The young radicals and even some people who should know better say America is a sick society.
In the words of Eldridge Cleaver all religions are phony.


“The Puritan ethic is rejected by many minority people because these people have failed to obtain their fair share of the good things of an affluent society built on the Puritan ethic. They are not willing to trust their reward at some future time to a benevolent God in heaven – they want some of that reward now.


“And I think they are right in saying and believing something better must be done for them, and by them – and it must be done now. We don’t need a new philosophy – we need better application of the old.


“We have, here in our area, the Herbert Hoover Memorial Boys; Club. We also have the Nairobi Day School Teen Summer Project. Both of these groups are directed toward influencing the minds of the young people of this community toward their training and education.”


Packard says he has quoted from the philosophy of Hoover, and he would like to quote from the Nairobi Day School Teen Summer Project. He gives some quotes by young people who attended the Nairobi (East Palo Alto) Day School Project:


Here is a poem titled “Black is Beautiful” which Packard quoted:

“Black is who is always getting in fights

Black is who is now standing for their rights.

Black is the way you walk,

Black is the way you talk.

Black is the kind of food you eat,

Black is [who] the pigs like to beat.

Black is who was a slave,

Black is who pigs think don’t bathe.

Black is the way you wear your hair,

Black is at whom the pigs stare.

Black is the music you dig,

Black is the way you gig.

And I would like to say,

As I finish this poem today,



Packard continues, “These are not the happy, care-free young people Mr. Hoover recalls. They are troubled. And we must be troubled when we hear what they say. But if one reads on, there is a clear ray of hope.” And Packard quotes another poem:




“Education is what we need

To get along in this world,

In reading let us pick up speed.

Whether we are a boy or girl.


Math we need also in school

To develop our minds so blank,

But it’s better than pitching pennies or shooting pool,

So let’s not walk that plank.


Science is a necessary thing

To me and to others

So when our education bell rings,

Let’s help our sisters and brothers.”


“These are the young people of East Palo Alto. They are complaining about their lot – but behind the complaints is a new sense of pride – a dedication to education – a call for competence and responsibility. These are the activist young people speaking.


“Behind them is the vast majority who have faith in the American way as did Herbert Hoover.


“Since I have been involved in the minority problems of this area, I have had many communications – letters, phone calls, and discussions with people from the black community who do not agree with the black activist tactics. People who believe that the traditional values of our society are right. People who would agree with Herbert Hoover. They are the ones we must help – not just the activists who attract attention.


“I am convinced we must all work harder to open the doors of opportunity for our friends in the minority community. Progress will come to them through education – education dedicated to the goal of improving their competence and responsibility.


“I believe my friends in the Nairobi Day School are also saying that their students should strive to be competent and responsible.


“I am sure I speak for all of the employers in this area – we couldn’t care less about Swahili or African History – we want people who are competent in English and mathematics and science. People who can do a job well. But if pride in their background or learning Swahili helps them appreciate the importance of competence and responsibility, then it’s all to the good.”


“We are here tonight to honor and to help the Herbert Hoover Memorial Boys’ Club. It is involved in the future of young people from the black community.


“Get these people into club

n  education

n  jobs

n  housing


“Don’t blame them for what’s going on – blame yourself – get with it.


“The Herbert Hoover Memorial Boys; Club is one of the very important enterprises in our community. It can help bring hope, confidence, competence and responsibility. It can demonstrate that the principles which guided Herbert Hoover’s long and useful life can also serve the young people of today.


“We don’t need to discard the things which have made America great. We simply need to get these troubled people on board. This will take understanding by you and me. It will take time and it will take work. There is no greater challenge today. Perhaps this is the most severe challenge we have yet encountered.


“It can be done, and one good step is for us all to give our unqualified support to the Herbert Hoover Boys’ Club here in our community.


“But don’t stop with your $25 involvement tonight – move into this job as though you really mean it.”



11/20/68, Copy of the printed program for the Boys’ Club dinner at Rickey’s Hyatt House in Palo Alto.

9/6/68, Letter to Packard from David M Botsford, A Director of the Boys’ Club, saying he had received the “good news” that Packard has agreed to speak at their dinner.

9/11/68, Copy of letter from Packard to David Botsford confirming Packard’s willingness to speak.

11/8/68, Letter to Margaret Paull from Mrs. Crone Kernke sending material written by Herbert Hoover.

11/26/68, Letter to Packard from David Botsford thanking him for his participation at the dinner.

12/4/68, Letter to Margaret Paull thanking her for mailing out invitations to the dinner.

12/13/68, Letter to Packard from Bruce Michael asking for a $5000 donation for the Boys’ Club Drum and Bugle Corps. He says the last minute request is necessitated by the unexpected withdrawal of a pledge from another company.

1217/68, Copy of letter from Packard to Bruce Michael saying he “cannot help further at this time….There are just too many other things that come higher on my list of priorities.”

Several newspaper clippings and other articles providing Packard background reference material.

1969 – Packard Speeches

Box 1, Folder 36 – Department of Defense – Speeches, includes correspondence relating to speeches


March 15, 1969, National Alliance of Business


3/15/69, Typewritten text of speech.


Packard says he is “delighted to be here today…to participate in discussions of one of the most crucial issues facing our country – our great country must provide a better life for the millions of disadvantaged persons among us.”


He says that he has “been working hard for the past two months on another very critical issue which faces us. How can we assure this generation and future generations that they will not suffer the horrors of a nuclear war.


“The President’s decisions on the ABM yesterday will not eliminate the debate on this issue. By and large the opponents are only trying to find excuses for what underlies their real opposition to the ABM. The system is technically sound. It will do the job we are asking it to do. The system is needed to help safeguard our strategic forces. It will help preserve a very strong deterence through the next decade.


“The real issue which troubles the opponents is whether the six to seven billion dollars we plan to spend on this safeguard deployment over the next six to seven years might better be spent to help solve the kinds of problems we are discussing here today.”


Packard agrees that money is needed to solve these problems, but he feels that the real solution lies with people. “This problem will be solved only by the dedicated leadership of concerned people at all levels of our society.” And he adds that “The National Alliance of Businessmen can make a very real and important impact on the task of providing more and better jobs for disadvantaged people.”


Saying that he had assured the President that the National Alliance of Businessmen could be counted on to get the job done, Packard passes along some suggestions based on his experience the previous year.


“1. The chief executive of the company, or the head of the union, must be committed to the program.” And he adds that “every employee must know that the chief executive expects every one to do his part.”


“2.  The chief executives of the major companies, and chief labor leaders, have a key role enlisting the support of smaller organizations in their communities.”


“3.  You must go out in the community to get to these disadvantaged people – they will not come to you.”


“4. And he gives a word about young people. “They need and deserve special attention. They are the good citizens, or the trouble-makers, of the future. I recommend very strongly that those boys and girls from improvished (sic) homes – but who have done their work well in school,  deserve first priority in jobs. If we do not reward success in this program we will not encourage success.”



Box 1, Folder 37 – Department of Defense


March 16, 1969, Issues and Answers, ABC radio interview.


3/16/69 Typewritten copy of recorded interview of Deputy Director of Defense Packard, conducted by John Scalli and Bill Downs.


The interviewers ask Packard about the antiballistic missile program (ABM) bringing up various objections that opponents of the program have put forth. Packard is asked how we can be sure that the program will not expand to a “fantastically expensive” program. Packard responds  that “…it is appropriate that we deploy these ABM defenses to protect our second strike capability….and we provide in this plan no base on which a large defense against a sophisticated Soviet attack could possible be built.”


Packard is asked how we can be sure the system will work once it is built. Packard says he is convinced it “will work for the purposes that we are proposing to use it.” He says that time will not permit building the whole system and then testing it. The plan is to start with building two sites.


Packard is asked if building up the present POLARIS submarine force as an alternative was considered. Packard says this was considered, but was felt to be too provocative to the Soviets.


Packard is asked if a military space platform was considered; to which he replies that “I haven’t seen any proposal that would involve a military space platform that would encourage me to change our decision on this.”


Packard is asked about the time permitted to decide on the release of a missile if we detected a Soviet missile coming our way, and the fear of a retaliatory decision being made by a low level military person. Packard points out that the President must approve the release of any nuclear weapon, and that he can be located within the 20-30 minute time span estimated as available.


Packard is asked about the dangers of an expanding military budget. Packard says “I look upon priorities in this order: The defense of the country has to have the highest priority. The solutions to our social problems have to have a high priority. Almost as high perhaps.” He says he feels the “country has the money to provide for a strong defense and also the money to do these other things. One of the things I think it is important for us to realize is that social problems cannot be solved with money alone. They are people problems. They have to be solved by people.”


Packard is asked how efficient he believes the Soviet anti-ballistic missile system is. Packard says that their continuing deployment [of large missile weapons] “could very well be a serious problem in a threat against our second strike capability, and this was one of the factors that encouraged me to move toward this defensive, or retaliatory capability posture.”


One interviewer asks about “the Chinese threat, vis-a-vis, the Russians.” Packard says there have been many speculations as to the capability of the Chinese missile weapons system, “I can tell you what we do know. The Chinese have proceeded with their development of large thermonuclear warheads. They have developed them and tested them.”


Packard is asked how serious the Vietnam situation is. Packard says the Vietnamese are continuing to infiltrate troops and build up their forces “…but we don’t know whether they will attack or not.”


Packard is asked if he thinks, considering “the temper” of the country whether anyone in the U.S. Government “could really order full-scale bombing of North Vietnam again.” Packard says “the President has taken a very wise course to be a little cautious about how far he would move ahead on this.”


When asked if a lottery draft would not be more just in calling people to service, Packard says “I don’t know whether a lottery is the right argument or not, but certainly the present system is not very good.”


As to the possibility of an all-volunteer force, Packard responds that “An all-volunteer force would be feasible if you want to pay enough for it. Whether it is desirable or not is another question.”



Box 1, Folder 38 – Department of Defense


May 9, 1969, The Business Council, Hot Springs, VA


3/9/69, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech


At this point Packard has been on the job as Deputy Secretary of Defense for about four months. His main thrust is justification of the anti-ballistic system known as Safeguard. Before explaining his position on Safeguard he does talk about other activities in which he has been involved over the past four months: the military budget, what he refers to as “this reconnaisance (sic) matter” [the Pueblo ship which was held hostage], Spanish bases, the “waves of student unrest over the country.”


Turning to the subject of ABMs Packard says “One of the interesting assignments that I have had has been to consider the strategic nuclear problems in relation to the Soviet Union.” While saying that he doesn’t “relish the idea of studying the results of so-called war games in which tens or hundreds of millions of people are killed,” Packard says “…there is no more important matter for the future of mankind than the avoidance of a nuclear war. The only practical course open,…for the world, is for both the United States and the Soviet Union to be in such a position that neither could afford to start a nuclear war with the other….”
Packard reviews the development of strategic nuclear weapons over the past two decades. In the first phase of the nuclear area(sic), we had only a few long-range nuclear weapons while the Soviet Union had none.”


“By the late 1950s and early 1960s both sides had strategic nuclear forces…The United States had a clear superiority ….”


“By 1966 this country had built its long-range nuclear forces to a level which was considered to be adequate.”


“Today we are approaching a rough balance in this nuclear situation.”


Packard sees some “significant implications in the strategic nuclear balance….”


“Both the United States and the Soviet Union have sufficient long-range nuclear weapons provided – and this is an important question, an important qualification – that both are responsible in their policies about nuclear war. A country with a responsible policy on general nuclear war need have only enough secure weapons to guarantee enough damage in retaliation to deter any potential aggressor.”


Packard says the U.S. has this kind of force today, and this kind of policy. “The Soviets also have this kind of a force today….We do not know, however, that they have this kind of a policy.”


“So while we hope that the Soviets see this nuclear problem as we do and see the benefits to both sides of a rational approach we do have to hedge against the possibility that the Soviets may see it differently.”


“Our objective, then, is to take the precautions to protect our deterrent capability in any way that will be consistent with arms control talks, whether they are successful or whether they fail.”


“These are the considerations that led this Administration to modify the Sentinel ballistic missile defense of the Johnson Administration into the Safeguard System. Safeguard is planned and configured not only to do a particular job if needed, but to do it in a way that helps maintain balance and introduce stability into strategic nuclear equations.”


Referring to critics who argue that the system may be needed at some time, but not now, Packard says “The fact is that we do not need it now. If we do need it by 1976 we just have to start now. If we could be assured that we would not need this protection before 1978 we could indeed fall back to an R&D position. But I cannot recommend that we take that kind of a chance with the security of our country.”


In answer to critics who say there are better ways to protect our deterrent forces, Packard says the time scale will not allow it: “Five years for the first two sites; seven years at the earliest for the full system.”


Cost has been another factor of contention. In response Packard says “Some of the $2.1 billion for Phase I has already been spent and the balance will be spent over the next five years.”


“The Phase I program then that we are recommending will cost the country about $500 million a year over the next five years. The question then is can we afford to spend one-half of one percent of this nation’s budget on a defense which might, and it just might, determine the survival of America?”


“Many of the opponents base the opposition to Safeguard on their belief, or their feeling, that the domestic problems of America are more important than the problems of defense. I have no quarrel with the proposition that domestic problems of the country are important. And I might even go so far as to say that if we do not solve these troublesome domestic problems, we’ll not need to defend America because there won’t be much worthwhile to defend.


“But I hasten to assure you that I am really not that pessimistic. I believe and am sure that our domestic problems can and will be solved. This country has ample resources in people and knowledge and understanding and the money to provide for defense that will keep the peace and also to resolve these social problems.”


Packard says the President recommended Safeguard because he thought it was right. He recommended Safeguard because he wanted to enter Arms Control talks with the Russians from a position of strength. He recommended Safeguard because he believes America must be strong in the future as it has been strong in the past. He deserves your support and my support in this decision.



Box 1, Folder 39 – Department of Defense


May 14, 1969, Department of Defense Seminar, Leadership of Non-Government Organizations [NGOs]

Packard appears to be giving some introductory comments to a group gathered for the day. Not clear who the group might be, but appears to be non-governmental.


5/14/69, Handwritten notes by Packard outlining points he wished to bring out in speech. Notes are fragmented and brief.


Packard says he has been here for four months and is just beginning to learn.

He speaks of a “Report on DOD to stakeholders,” service to people – nearly 80 billion, nearly 9% GNP, about half to support personnel, half goes to equipment and services.


Probably 20-25% of people in U.S. dependent on DOD.


Money from taxes


DOD is here to do the job people of America want it to do. We are responsible to President as Commander in Chief. President through the political process is responsible to you.”


Viet Nam first priority


What we are asked to do determines spending.


Strategy – Russia


Safeguard System designed to [be] deterrent.


Pleased to have you here. Better indicate how DOD can serve your needs.




Box 1, Folder 40 – Department of Defense


May 16, 1969, Acquisition of Major Weapons Systems, Etc. The audience appears to be managers from within the DOD.


5/16/69, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech


Packard tells the managers that on May 3rd and 4th Secretary Laird and he held “an informal weekend meeting” to discuss problems facing the Department of Defense. Packard explained that the idea was not to arrive at solutions so much as to define the problems so that all had a clear idea with what needed to be done and could work together on common objectives. [example of HP management practice, MBO]


Packard says he expects, as a result of this weekend discussion, they will be able to “move ahead to the clarification of some of our Department policies, because everyone with a management responsibility can do his job well only if he knows what is expected of him.” He adds “that it is desirable for every manager to have clear understanding of his objectives, and then be free as possible to use his knowledge, initiative and understanding to implement those policies as effectively as possible in his own way. I believe from this approach it is easy to get good motivation and enthusiasm, which, of course, are important elements in any organization.”


Packard says that the objectives towards which they are trying to move are contained in written policies, guidelines and directives; and are further “communicated by listening to people in the organization discussing their problems and their approaches to the solution of those problems.”


Toward that end Packard introduces three speakers: Dr. John Foster, Director of Research and Engineering, Secretary Moot, comptroller, and Secretary Shillito, Installations and Logistics.  Packard says each will give a short presentation on their role as related to major weapons systems acquisition. He reminds the people that they will continue to direct their attention to problems in this area and in develop some Department-wide policies for future guidance in acquiring weapons systems in the future.


Packard’s text does not include information on the remarks of the three speakers.


In closing, Packard says he hopes “that we will find time to discuss some of these matters directly with you.” And he says he would like to have their reaction “as to the benefit of a film like this in helping you understand our common objectives of better management in the Defense Department.”



Box 1, Folder 41 – Department of Defense


May 17, 1969, Armed Forces Day, World Affairs Council, Los Angeles.


5/17/69, Copy of transcript of Packard’s speech as prepared by the DOD Public Affairs Office.


Packard speaks of some of the troubled areas of the world – war in Vietnam, Mideast crisis unresolved, Czechoslovakia, North Korea belligerence, unrest at home. He feels we have slipped into a mood of confusion and uncertainty which has generated militancy among minorities, radicalism among students and which has affected the faculties and leadership of our universities and churches.


“Those very institutions which should be the stabilizing influences in our society, centers of rational thought and moral strength, are in danger of becoming emotional instead of rational, demoralizing instead of stabilizing.”


Packard is concerned that much of the vitriol is directed at the military establishment and the men and women in uniform who we are honoring here today.” He spends considerable time explaining that the military does the job that is asked of it by the people. He points out it is not the proper purpose of the Defense Department to make policy for America, and says “The armed services role is to carry out the orders of their Commander-in-Chief, the President of the United States, and in the final analysis the President is responsible to the will of the people.”


He moves on to a discussion of strategic problems – the first being our relationship with the Soviet Union. He says we have worked out a balance of destruction capability, but Russia seems to be going beyond this with the development and deployment of  their strategic forces. “But,” he says, “we must also take such action to make sure there can be no advantage for either side in starting a nuclear war….”


Packard describes the Safeguard Missile system which is being considered by Congress and which he recommends.


5/17/69, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech.



Box 1, Folder 42 – Department of Defense


May 22, 1969, Aerospace Industries Association, Williamsburg, VA


5/22/69. Copy of typewritten speech


Packard lists three problems facing the Department of Defense. “The first problem is to determine the tasks that are to be performed by the Department of Defense. The second problem is to determine the forces that are required to accomplish

these tasks. The third problem is to procure and operate these forces in the most efficient manner.”


Concerning the first problem – defining the DOD tasks, Packard says there are two questions involved: Do we have the military force structure adequate to support United States commitments around the world? And, secondly, what military budget level will the people of the United States support over the next few years?


Packard says the National Security Council will make decisions on the military tasks which must be performed to support United States interests in the world – taking into account costs for various alternatives. He says they are working within the DOD to develop better procedures on which to build budgets for the future.


On the second major problem – the determination of forces necessary to meet the national objectives – Packard says they will be encouraging the services to “apply system analysis and cost effective procedures, realizing that all problems are not solved by analytical procedures alone.”


The third problem area concerned the need to procure and operate Defense resources in the most efficient manner possible. He says they will be “taking a very hard look at whether we need all this gadgetry when we go into a new development…” He questions the reliability of complex systems and says that “A tank with its gun out of order is not a tank at all.”


Packard says they do not have all plans worked out but he can tell the direction they are going. “We expect to have all future contracts for weapons systems include realistic achievement milestones which must be met before production is started.” And on another point he says “Neither the DOD or the Congress will continue to tolerate cost overruns which relate to unrealistic pricing at the time of award, or to inadequate management of the job during the contract.”


He closes with “I hope you will agree with me that we should not and can not settle for less.”


5/22/69, Press release issued by the DOD Public Affairs Office describing speech.



Box 1, Folder 43 – Department of Defense


June 9, 1969, The Advertising Council, Washington D. C.


6/9/69,  Copy of typewritten speech with some notations written by Packard


Packard’s talk is a request for support of the Safeguard ballistic missile system. He says the general public supports the Safeguard by a large margin. This will be “an important factor in the congressional vote, but the issue certainly is not settled. The issue is becoming somewhat obscured, in fact, by an unfortunate emotionalism which is found in one segment of the public. The emotion is not related to the Safeguard issue; it apparently is just a dislike on the part of some persons of things military.”


Packard says he would like to “separate the Safeguard from this emotionalism and examine the basic issues reasonable and simply and then suggest that you people make up your own minds.”


When Packard joined the Nixon Administration he says he “…helped review and resolve a number of pending defense problems, among them the problem of our strategic nuclear weapons and policies and their relation to the weapons and policies of the Soviet Union. Nuclear planning is not pleasant, but I can think of no more important matter for the future of mankind than the avoidance of nuclear war – and avoidance of nuclear war is the heart of the Safeguard issue.”


Packard describes the situation where both the Soviets and the U.S. have sufficient deterrent forces – either one could respond to an attack with such force that the attacker would be destroyed. However, the Soviets are continuing to install big, accurate missiles, well suited for an attack on our Minuteman ICBMs, but ill-suited for a policy of deterrence only.


“Since we cannot tolerate any significant doubt of the ability of our weapons to deter, we must find some way to give our weapons more protection.” After considering and discarding several options, which  Packard explores, he says President Nixon recommended the Safeguard system to Congress. The plan is to install the system at two locations over the next five years, work out the bugs and then decide if further expansion seems necessary.


“The defense of bombers and missiles will show the Soviets that they cannot reduce the survivability of our deterrent weapons and thereby raise the risk of thermonuclear war. It should induce them to abandon any hopes they may have of achieving a low-risk, first-strike capability.”


“America’s long-range nuclear retaliatory weapons are truly vital to us. If their effectiveness were ever to be questioned seriously by a potential enemy, the lives of most of us could be in jeopardy. This is why a decision to offer extra protection to our deterrent should be made calmly and rationally. This is the way that President Nixon made his decision. I hope that the public will address the issues in the same way. And I hope that the final vote by the Congress will be made only on the merits of this issue, the issue of deterrence of nuclear war, of control of nuclear weapons – of the avoidance of nuclear holocaust.


“Sober examination will show, I am confident, that what the President is asking is simply that we use the best technology available in the most effective and economic way to meet a real and most serious challenge.


“We must be able to deploy Safeguard as, and if, it is needed. Safeguard is an essential response to a risk which our country and our people cannot and need not accept.


“I have outlined the problem and the available solutions. I have given you my views. I urge you to make up your own minds. If I can help by answering any questions here this morning, I will be pleased to do so now.”


6/9/69, Press release issued by the DOD Public Affairs Office covering Packard’s speech.


5/28/69, Letter to Packard from Robert Keim, President of The Advertising Council, inviting him to attend and speak at the June 9 affair. A copy of the program is attached.



Box 1, Folder 44 – Department of Defense


July 25, 1969, Vietnam and the Nixon Administration, The Bohemian Grove.


7/25/69, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech with handwritten notations by him.


Packard says he is pleased to have “the opportunity to report to you today on some of the problems I have been wrestling with since the first of the year….”

He says that some people may be concerned that he may leave the private sector permanently. He assures everyone that this will not be true, adding that “These past six months in Washington have only served to reinforce the convictions of my prior experience – that the strength of America resides in the private sector. If there is any hope for this country it resides in the private sector.”


Packard says he wants to talk mainly about Vietnam, but first wants to make a few comments about the ABM. “The ABM issue is not just a simple issue of what should be done for the defense of our country. It has become a symbol – a symbol of the times. It is a measure of the attitudes and the emotions of the whole American society.”


Packard tells how one of his first assignments upon coming to Washington was to write a Department of Defense position on the ABM issue so a recommendation could be made to the President….After evaluating the matter as objectively as he could, Packard says he came to the conclusion that “…an ABM system is both technically feasible and necessary for the defense of our country.”


He says he is amazed at the level of controversy created by the ABM program, and is “most troubled by the attitude of some in our scientific community.” Saying that he has had, and still has, much respect for scientists – “this respect is shaken when I see some of our respected scientists take positions on the ABM issue that seem to be guided by their emotions or based on political judgements [sic] which lie outside their expertise rather than on objective scientific analysis.”


After “listening carefully to all that has been said on the ABM issue,” and after “having had the benefit of all of the information that has come through our intelligence channels during the last six months,” Packard says “I am even more convinced now than I was four months ago that the President’s decision on the SAFEGUARD system is precisely the right decision for the security of our country.”


That said, Packard moves on to the “troublesome question of Vietnam.”



Packard describes the high cost of  this war –the “tragic loss…of more than 37,000 fine young Americans killed in action  and of tens of thousands of others who have suffered serious injury….”


“In dollars, the price is approaching $100 billion.”


And Packard points out how the Vietnam War contributes to pressing domestic problems – inflation, lack of money for schools, hospitals, housing.


“We also pay a price for Vietnam in the profound and bitter division of our people about the war. The conflict is a serious obstacle to the national unity President Nixon called for in his Inaugural Address.”


“Then, too, Vietnam has had an effect on the strategic balance between the United States and the Soviet Union. Diverting nearly one-third of our defense dollars to Vietnam is one cause of the current situation in which the Soviet Union is now outspending us in strategic offensive programs by a factor of 3 to 2 and in strategic defensive programs by a factor of 3 to 1….”


Packard says President Nixon wants to end the war – but “High as the costs of Vietnam are, they are not nearly as heavy a price as we would pay if we were to cut and run as some advocate.”




“One option for solving the Vietnam problem is through negotiations….Unfortunately, however, the Paris talks remain unproductive.”


Consequently, Packard explains, “the Nixon Administration felt it necessary to consider alternative courses.”


Packard says some have asked why a military war should not be an alternative. He says this alternative would “certainly require fighting the war on the territory of North Vietnam as well as in Laos and Cambodia. It would probably require defeating the main forces of the enemy in their territory, on the ground, carrying out the slow process of stifling guerilla warfare. And it could require occupation of conquered territory by American forces for many years.”


“The alternative which the President has chosen in case the Peace talks fail is a change in the role of the United States in the war, a change that has been given the name of “Vietnamization.”



 Packard explains that “Vietnamization” means “shifting responsibility for military operations from American to south Vietnamese forces as the latter increase their capability to defend their country.”


But Packard says “The United States is not going to leave south Vietnam in the lurch.” He says the reduction in American personnel is a process of replacement, not withdrawal. “The reduction in American troop strength contemplates that south Vietnam can be defended against the Communists.”


“The President laid down three conditions which govern decisions on reductions of U. S. troop levels in Vietnam —


“The ability of the south Vietnamese to defend themselves in areas where we are now defending them.


“the progress of the talks in Paris,


“the level of enemy activity.”



Packard sees that we face these facts as of mid-1969:


“1. General Abrams has done an outstanding job in dealing with communist main force efforts and in exacting from them a high price in casualties and captured supplies and weapons for their continuing harassment, terror, and sabotage.


“2.  South Vietnamese forces continue to improve their combat effectiveness, but problems with their leadership and morale persist in many areas. Desertions especially continue to be a serious problem.


“3. Urban areas are generally secure though not immune from sporadic mortar attacks and sappers.


“4. Government control of rural areas is improving, but many villages are still under Viet Cong control, and many more are still subject to attacks which are often directed at assassination of village leaders.


“5. Communist losses in manpower and materiel are severe, and are increasing

on a relative basis, but do not appear to be at a decisive level.


“6. President Thieu’s government in Saigon appears to be in satisfactory control, but it presently lacks the desired broad base of political and popular support.


“7. The war is costing Russia and China in the range of two billion dollars a year.



Packard says “I reveal no state secret when I say that there has been no visible progress in Paris despite 26 official meetings and a series of efforts by the United States to move the talks off dead center.”



Packard summarizes the policy of the Nixon Administration. “We hold firmly to one objective: permitting the people of south Vietnam freely to determine their own destiny. We want peace as speedily as possible, but we cannot acquiesce in a peace which denies this opportunity to the South Vietnamese.”


“At the same time we are striving to lower the level of hostilities and to raise the level of the combat capabilities of the south Vietnamese. …We shall continue our efforts to reduce the size of American forces in Vietnam by shifting to the South Vietnamese a greater share of responsibility for the fighting.”



“Will our objectives be attained?“ Packard asks. “It takes two sides to make peace, and, given the intractable attitude of the other side at Paris, I cannot be confident that progress there will soon be forthcoming. We can, I am confident, continue to reduce the American combat role in the war.”


“No policy that we might adopt toward Vietnam is free of risk. The plan we are following has risks but they are fewer in our judgment than those involved in any other course we might pursue at this time.”


“I know how leaders in Hanoi think the war in Vietnam will end. They expect the same outcome as that of their war with the French – victory by default because the other side became weary of going on when no end was in sight.


“The outcome of the war has become a matter of will – The will of the South Vietnamese to assume full responsibility for their country, to fight through a dwindling war, and to build their nation on a strong base of social and political justice.


“Though attainment of our objective depends primarily on the will of the south Vietnamese, it depends, too, on the will of the American people, We must not falter or grow weary as Hanoi hopes and expects before our job is done.”


7/25/69, Copy of typewritten text of Packard’s speech without notations.




Box 1, Folder 45 – Department of Defense


July 29, 1969, Defense Supply Agency, Cameron Station, Alexandria, VA


7/29/69,  Typewritten text of Packard’s speech, written in outline format. He is speaking to a group of about 300 military and civilian personnel from the Agency. Dress uniform and black tie were in order.


Packard congratulates the audience on their achievements over the past 8½ years, and he enumerates a list of these – millions of items in the military “catalogue,”  billions of dollars of sales, on time deliveries, Vietnam buildup.


Packard talks about the need for good management, particularly with some 58,000 employees – and he recommends “management by objective.” [reference to HP management by objective, MBO,  practices.]


On the subject of major weapons systems he says the process of development needs to be more complete before production is begun. Check points need to be established, cost vs. performance trade-offs analyzed, more emphasis on reliability.


For the future he sees:


No more year to year budget increases

Must be an efficient, well planned program to meet needs of future.


He closes saying they have his full support and he offers to be of help at any time.


7/29/69, Notes of speech handwritten by Packard.

7/11/69, Letter to Packard from Lt. General Earl Hedlund giving details on the dinner meeting.




Box 1. Folder 46 – Department of Defense


September 17, 1969, Criticism, Dissent – and the Defense of Our Nation

Loyola University, Los Angeles, CA  The event was in commemoration of Citizenship Day and Constitution Week


9/17/69, Typewritten text of speech, with some handwritten notes by Packard.


Packard talks about the many things that the dissatisfied and impatient youth of the day want – rid society of evil and injustice, establish peace, eliminate slums, end poverty, end ethnic and racial discrimination, cure disease, and “strike down hundreds of other wrongs.”


Packard says their “impulses are generally noble, and the commitment to the well-being of their fellow man is admirable. Though they will not achieve all they hope to do, they will remove many of the blemishes of the social and political order which have been tolerated for too long. Some are over zealous, but there is nothing wrong with this that living a little longer will not solve.”


“The young people that I know best,” Packard says, “…are those in our armed forces. I cannot praise them too highly. And he adds that “No one, whatever his feelings about why or how we are fighting in Southeast Asia, should feel anything but pride and gratitude toward the gallant young Americans there. And it may not be amiss to note that there, white and black Americans set an example for the home front by living and working and fighting together in harmony, in mutual respect and trust.”


Packard says the nation’s young people such as these people in uniform receive too little notice. “There is, on the other hand, a surfeit of publicity for the nihilistic minority whose aim is destruction and whose tactics are threats, violence, and disorder. These tactics have no place in the United States where the constitution guarantees orderly procedures for peaceful change. Above all, they have no place on the university campus where reason – not violence – ought to dwell.”


While he is less disturbed by the “antics” of some disruptive youths, Packard says he is concerned “about certain currents of public opinion that in the long term could have more serious consequences for the nation. There is a danger that national defense will be neglected in the future, and this danger is heightened by irresponsible attacks on the nation’s military forces.”


“The campaign against the military has had repercussions on the campus – notable in protest against the ROTC. At Loyola, which boasts one of the best ROTC units in the Air Force, the relationship between the university and the military has been exemplary. At some other universities, our experience has been far different. In a few, the climate has become so inhospitable that we have had to terminate ROTC programs.”


Packard says he views such developments with dismay. “The ROTC furnishes about half of the new officers commissioned each year. Without it, we would be deprived of the leavening influence that these young men fresh from civilian educational institutions bring to the armed forces. And without it, an important link between the military and the schools of the nation would be broken.”


Reading the newspapers and periodicals of the day Packard says it would be easy to get the impression that the military does nothing right. He admits that mistakes have been made, but says that “with 3.5 million military people and over a million civilians, there will always be cases where people make mistakes. Unfortunately, it is only the mistakes that make the headlines, and mistakes are fair game for Congressional hearings. The Pentagon has also done a lot of things right, and, in order to give some balance to the discussion, these are the things I would like to talk to you about.


“I submit that the Department of Defense should be judged in terms of its essential function – providing the armed strength to keep the nation and its citizens secure against all external threats – to protect our citizens and vital interests – and to meet our obligations to support our friends throughout the world.”


Packard notes that “Our critics…have complained about an excess amount of strength. I submit to you it is infinitely better to have a little too much than not quite enough.”


In response to criticism  of the military that its “strength is being used for the wrong purposes  (as in Vietnam some would say),“ he points out that “the use to which our military strength is put is not determined by the Department of Defense, but rather by the White House and on Capitol Hill.”


Saying that his purpose tonight “is not to refute the critics. Rather, I want to point out a few of the positive things about the Defense Department that the critics seem to miss. I limit myself to five things that we’re doing right.


“First, we are progressing in our efforts to train and equip the forces of South Vietnam to assume greater combat responsibility, which permit reduction of American forces in southeast Asia….As a result, the replacement of American troops is under way.


“This is a break from the policy of the past that dictated a constant increase in American forces in the theater of combat and assumption by the United States of the major responsibility for the conduct of the war.”


“Second we are progressing in our effort to bring the Defense budget under better control. As a result of painstaking review of that budget, Secretary Laird has announced preparations for cuts during the current fiscal year which will reduce spending by more than $4 billion below the level recommended by President Johnson.”


“Third, we are doing a number of things to improve the procurement system for major weapons….We are proceeding to make sure that we have eliminated as many technical uncertainties as possible before full-scale development is begun, and that development is complete before production is started.”


“Fourth, we are progressing in reforming the management of manpower in the Department of Defense. We are keenly aware of the fact that people are our most important asset.


“We have given particular attention to the problems of ROTC an have worked closely with the universities and colleges of the nation to rectify any shortcomings in the present program.”


“Fifth, we are progressing in using the resources of the Defense Department in a vigorous campaign against such evils as poverty, ignorance, and discrimination. Secretary Laird has given direction and emphasis to such activities by creating within the Department of Defense the Domestic Action Council which stimulates and guides this aspect of our work….We have done much to eliminate discrimination in housing. We run one of the nation’s largest school systems in non military subjects and probably the biggest occupational skill training program in the world. In securing the goods we need, we give special attention to procurement from small business firms and minority enterprise. In addition, we have begun to make our facilities available to disadvantaged youth of nearby communities for learning and recreation.”


“Our Constitution, the signing of which we are gathered here to commemorate, reflected the cautious attitude of eighteenth-century America toward military power. It established civilian control over the military forces and sought thereby to guarantee that the military would always be the servants of the American people.


“No military leader of our country would want it any other way. The subordination of military to civilian authority is fully recognized and wholeheartedly supported by those who wear the uniform.


“On the other hand, those who framed the Constitution recognized that the system of government which it established required military power if it was to endure. They selected, after all, as their presiding officer at the Constitutional Convention, the man who had been commander in chief of the armed forces in the Revolutionary War.”


“The proudest responsibility of the armed forces is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. They will continue to discharge this responsibility with fidelity. And this vast country shall remain one nation under this Constitution as long as our armed forces discharge this responsibility with the trust and confidence of the people whose freedom they guard.”


9/17/69, Copy of a News Release issued by the Department of Defense Public Affairs Office, covering the speech.

9/17/69, Copy of the program for the dinner event.

9/17/69, Copy of the invitation to the dinner.

4/30/69, Letter to Packard from John C. Cosgrove expressing delight that Packard has accepted the invitation to speak at the Citizenship Day Dinner.

9/30/69, Letter to Packard from George E. Lacy S. J., Vice-President-University Relations, thanking Packard for participating in their event.

10/1/69, Letter to Packard from Donald P. Merrifield, S. J., expressing appreciation for his talk.



Box 1. Folder 47 – Department of Defense


September 23, 1969, 10th Annual Joint Communications-Electronics Conference.

9/23/69, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech. He is apparently speaking to a group of people responsible for the Command, Control and Communications system used by DOD among others.


Packard emphasizes the importance of the command control and communications functions to the capability of the military forces. “…in the last two decades they have become critical elements – when we face warning times measured in minutes in a world-wide theater, the survival of the nation can depend on how well you have done your job.


“With the advance of technology and the demanding requirements which are derived from our world-wide strategic situation, our command control-communications systems are forced to larger and more complex configurations. This in turn adds a new demanding requirement on the management, the planning, the procurement, and the operation of these systems. It is therefore appropriate that we review today some of the things we can do to achieve better management.”


Packard starts with planning – “…we have to know what we want to do….The answer to this question, of course, depends on our world-wide strategy – what do we need to be prepared to do around the world. “


To “come to closer grips” with this problem Packard says they have embarked on “an agency-wide study which is now nearing completion.”


“Good planning is the first step in good management. We must plan for systems that will be adequate to support our future force deployment and strategy. The studies I have outlined should help toward that end. We must also plan for systems which can be built and operated within the resources we will have available. We must design systems which meet the expected requirements but at the same time are not too complex and therefore too expensive to procure, operate and maintain.”


Packard says he feels we have done a good job developing the capabilities of our systems, but he is not so sure that “we have placed as much emphasis on cost and financial controls of this widely interspersed activity, and accordingly we plan to make some changes which we hope will bring this aspect of management into better focus.”


Packard outlines some steps they are taking to improve this situation. “First we plan to place more emphasis on the all important question of the design concept before we implement actual development. Is the proposed system adequate for the job but not too complex. Have we resolved the technical uncertainties, have we properly assessed the needs of the user. Above all, have we made realistic cost estimates before we make the decision to go ahead.


“… when we decide to go ahead with full-scale development and production have we laid out a plan under which we have development complete – or at least far enough along that the major problems are known and uncertainties eliminated before we begin production.”


“The second step in management is organization to get the job done. Organization with divided responsibility is a sure deterrent to success. Over-organization is often worse than under-organization. I have seen much more of the former than of the latter since I have been here.


“The third step in good management is motivation, and this is affected by the way a program is organized. Clear delegation of responsibility allows personal identification with success – and personal recognition for good performance – one of the strongest motivating actions available to management.


“The fourth step in good management is evaluation – evaluation of performance – did we in fact do what we set out to do – are we meeting our targets and do we know where we stand on a program in time to do something about it.”


In closing Packard urges each person present to follow the precepts of good management: “…if you are working together (good organization) toward a common objective (good planning) with a high level of enthusiasm (motivation), I am sure the evaluation of your performance by your superiors as well as the Congress and the public at large will come out with a high mark.”



Box 1, Folder 48 – Department of Defense


September 25, 1969, Secretary’s briefing, Pentagon


9/25/69, Typewritten copy of speech.


Packard gives a basic lecture on management: Planning, Organization, Motivation and Evaluation.


After going through each of these, which he calls “management by the book,”

he talks about a book titled “The Peter Principle” by Dr. Lawrence J. Peter. “In this book Dr. Peter defines a hierarchy as ‘an organization whose members or employees are arranged in order of rank, grade, or class’ Packard says “This seems to have something to do with the DOD.”


Packard quotes “The Peter Principle” which states: ‘In a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to his highest level of incompetence.’ And Peter’s corollary which is: ‘In time, every post in a hierarchy tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out his duties.’  Packard says “I don’t believe the DOD yet approaches the point of no return in this matter, but there are some symptoms which trouble me. Dr. Peter calls these symptoms ‘non-medical indices of Final Placement.’


“For instance, I have noticed a trend toward ‘Rigor Cartis’ – which is ‘an abnormal interest in charts with dwindling concern for realities that the charts represent.’


“There is a serious infection of ‘Codophilia, initial and digital – speaking in letters and numbers instead of words.’


“Then I have observed considerable of the ‘John Q. Diversion’\– undue reliance on public opinion.’


“And an excessive amount of ‘Papyromania– compulsive accumulation of papers.’


“There is a certain amount of ‘Professional Automatism – obsessive concern with rituals and a disregard of results.’


“I find some evidence also of  ‘Computerized Incompetence – incompetent application of computer techniques, or the inherent incompetence of a computer.’


“On the third floor E Ring, and in certain other areas, one can find evidence of ‘Tabulatory Gigantism’– obsession with large size desks.


“But despite the evidence of a limited intrusion of these various symptoms, I am glad to report to you that we have not yet achieved Success – either individually or collectively – Success is “final placement at the level of incompetence.”


“The challenge we all face, working together in the world’s largest hierarchy is to prove that The Peter Principle is not the inevitable result of people working in a hierarchy. That is our plan, our objective, and in the final analysis we will all be evaluated individually and collectively on our accomplishments against this objective.”




Box 1, Folder 49 – Department of Defense


October 15, 1969, Defense Supply Association, Washington D. C.


10/15/69, Typewritten text of speech


Commenting on the current  anti-war demonstrations Packard says he is “skeptical about the usefulness of today’s demonstrations. I think they are more likely to retard than to advance the day when Americans are no longer in combat. For, in my opinion, they encourage the enemy to hang on in the hope that we will pull out of Vietnam so abruptly that we will leave chaos in our wake.


“…Our country is now well along the road toward transferring to the south Vietnamese the heavy responsibility in military and other fields which we have been carrying.


“As fast as the South Vietnamese can be readied to assume the burdens which Americans have carried in their country, Americans will be phased out. And this replacement is being carried out at the fastest, practicable rate.”


“The main forces of the enemy have been weakened. The Viet Cong infrastructure has been badly shattered and demoralized. Steady progress has been made in pacifying the countryside, in establishing stable local government, and in equipping the forces needed for local security.”


“Of all the policies which the United States might pursue, Vietnamization offers the best prospect of rapid reduction of the burden which the United States has assumed in Vietnam without sacrificing what we have been fighting for.


“Concerned as we in the Defense Department are about Vietnam, we are also looking beyond it. In the most thorough, searching, and comprehensive assessment ever undertaken, the national Security Council is considering our defense needs for the future to support our foreign policy objectives.


“Some of the main lines of post-Vietnam policy have been sketched by the President. We shall continue, in collaboration with our NATO allies, to provide a military shield for the areas of Europe included in this Alliance. We shall maintain a strong interest in the development of free, stable, and prosperous nations in Asia by doing more to encourage Asian nations to develop the capacity to defend themselves without reliance on American troops. We shall maintain a strong offensive and defensive posture in order to provide deterrence to nuclear war.”


Packard turns to the budget and describes the ways they are reducing the cost of national defense. “We are planning reductions of more than $8 billion in obligations and $4 million in outlays in the Defense budget of the current fiscal year.” He describes the actions they are taking to achieve these savings: “…we are cancelling (sic) work on projects that are not of the greatest urgency;…laying up many aging vessels;…cutting manpower;… looking hard at our bases,…with a view to closing out some of them. And we have introduced tighter control over the development and production of new weapons systems.


“In short, we are tightening our belt in all areas where reduction will not adversely affect the military capability needed for the future.”


“…we are striving to ask no greater part of the taxpayers’ dollar than we really need. For these reasons, we are striving for more effective utilization of the resources available to us.”


To this end Packard stresses the need for “the efficient management of logistics” which is “of prime importance in the effective utilization of our resources. The Defense Supply Agency has a major responsibility in this field….As of June 1969, DSA was managing nearly 2 million of the 4 million Defense-used items.


“Still another important phase of integrated management has been the establishment of the Defense Coordinated Procurement program, under which one Defense component performs the Defense-wide consolidated purchase function for an assigned common-use commodity.”


“Taken together, over the past several years, these integrated management and procurement programs have saved literally hundreds of millions of dollars in decreased operating and procurement cost.”


Packard says he is “…impressed with the scope of the job being done by the Defense Contract Administration Services.  DCAS now administers over 65% of all DoD contracts over $10,000 and is represented in almost all major U.S. cities.”


“Secretary Laird and I do feel…that responsibilities for managing programs should be decentralized to the greatest extent practicable. The majority of our program managers have the tools necessary to do their job well, and qualified people are available to get the job done.“


“In connection with our efforts to improve controls over Defense spending, we have been concerned about cost overruns.” He describes the various reasons for cost overruns, says they are difficult to avoid in some programs,…“But we must do better than we have done in the past.”


To improve the “cost-estimating and decision-making processes, in connection with new systems in particular, and to improve the efficiency of the logistics function, in general…we have established a Defense Systems Acquisition Review Council at the Assistant Secretary level….” He says this function will advise “the Secretary of the current status of each major system and its readiness to proceed to the next phase of effort in its life cycle.”


In addition, Packard says “Secretary Laird has also appointed a Blue Ribbon Defense Panel, headed by Mr. Gilbert W. Fitzhugh, Chairman of the Board of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. The Panel is studying organization and management on DoD, research and development, procurement, and related matters. We expect from this Panel valuable counsel that will result in better organization and more efficient operation.”


Packard says “We will continue the DoD  Cost Reduction program which has been producing over $1 billion in audited savings annually.”


“Since the beginning of the present Administration, the DoD has been critically reviewing the rationale and the progress of all major programs. Several cancellations have resulted, such as the Manned Orbiting Laboratory and production of the Cheyenne helicopter; and other programs, such as ammunition purchases, have been reduced.”


“Along with the above actions, we established the Joint Logistics Review Board. This Board is charged with reviewing worldwide logistic support to our armed forces during the Vietnam era to identify strengths and weaknesses and to make appropriated recommendations for improvement. We are looking to the findings and recommendations of this Board to assist in the long-term improvement of our logistics systems in the light of the lessons Vietnam has taught us.”


Packard refers to the area of logistical support of forces in Vietnam, and quotes General Westmoreland on the subject:


“Never before in the history of warfare have men created such a responsive logistical system….Not once have the fighting troops been restricted in their operations against the enemy for want of essential supplies.”


Packard talks about the most difficult period being during the first year of buildup “when 200,000 men were deployed concurrently with the construction of the logistical base.”…He describes the shipping and construction challenges that had to be met, the storage facilities that had to be built; and on top of  this “ Our forces have…enjoyed the highest quality of personnel supplies such as food, clothing, and medical equipment ever provided during wartime.”


“As we carry out the reverse process of reducing our presence in Vietnam, we face a new and very complex set of logistical problems. One type of problem is that of removing substantial quantities of materiel and equipment which we shall not be leaving behind. The other type of problem is that of helping the South Vietnamese to build up their own logistical capacity so that in this field, as in combat activities, they will no longer rely so heavily on the United States.”


“I have mentioned in the course of these remarks several reasons which the Department of Defense has for pride in its accomplishments. One of the reasons for doing so is my conviction that the public is often given an unbalanced account of Defense activities – an account that emphasizes shortcomings and underplays or ignores accomplishments.


“Accomplishments are produced by people. Sometimes those at the pinnacle of large organizations seem to forget this obvious truth to the detriment of morale throughout the organization.


“Secretary Laird and I have set as one of our top priority objectives for the Defense Department a recognition of the importance of people. The work of the Department will be well done only if those in it, military and civilian, feel pride in themselves and their jobs. The Defense Department will be effective in the performance of its mission only if the public has faith in the competence and integrity of the Department’s personnel.


“We are proud of the people in Defense, and we do not intend to let their reputations be sullied. Any type of wrongdoing on the part of any Defense personnel will not be tolerated or ignored. In justice to the people of this nation and to the overwhelming majority of our military and civilian employees, we shall see to it that appropriate measures are taken to deal promptly with the few whose conduct violates the law or the standards of performance that the public has a right to expect.


“The present management of the Defense Department has been in office for only nine months. It has, I think, made some improvements. It will be a long time before I expect to find my “in basket” cleaned out of problems that beset this mammoth and complex organization. But we have made a start on a course that will provide benefits in terms of increased security in terms of increased security at minimum cost in the years ahead.”


10/15/69, Press release issued by the DOD Public Affairs office giving text of Packard’s speech.

10/13/69, Program for the 22nd Annual Convention, Defense Supply Association, Oct. 13, 14, 15,1969.

Undated news release announcing the forthcoming convention.

8/11/69, Copy of letter to Packard from Lt. Gen. A. T. McNamara inviting Packard to be the Principal Speaker at the Annual Banquet on Oct. 15, 1969.8/26/69, Copy of letter from Packard to Lt. Gen. A. T. McNamara, accepting offer to speak at the convention.

10/6/69, Letter to Packard from Lt. Gen. A. T. McNamara giving details on banquet.

10/7/69, Memorandum to Colonel Ray B. Furlong, Military Assistant to the Deputy Secretary giving details on the banquet.

Undated, chart of head table assignments.




Box 1, Folder 50 – Department of Defense


October 17, 1969, DoD Seminar for Leadership of National Organizations, Fort Myer, VA


10/17/69, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech.


Packard refers to “the activities of the so-called moratorium on the 15th of October,” and in this speech he gives his reaction to these events. He does not describe the events of Oct. 15, presuming that his audience is familiar with them; but it is clear they reflected dissent of the Vietnam War.


“Let me say first that the democratic system provides and guarantees the opportunity for such an expression of opinion. It is the function of our Government to assure that our critics as well as our supporters retain this right. At the same time, the democratic process can only be served by a legal and responsible expression of opinion. The activities of the 15th of October were largely legal; however, responsibility implies both the obligation to be informed and also a recognition of the consequences of this public expression of dissent.”


Packard says “Participation in the activities of October 15 has been interpreted as a vote of non-support for the President’s program for Vietnam. However, it is clear to me that many of those who participated would be active supporters of the President if they had the opportunity to be adequately informed.”


To do this Packard summarizes the situation, covering “the situation presented to the President in January, the plans developed since then, and our prospects for the future.


“When the Nixon Administration assumed office in January, the Paris talks had made little headway. They remain stalemated today. At Paris, the North Vietnamese can endlessly block our efforts to end the war through negotiation by deflecting all proposals. For this reason, the President decided at an early point in his Administration that we could not leave all our eggs in the negotiation basket.


“Today, there is an alternative course of action that at the same time complements our efforts at Paris. This program is Vietnamization.”


Packard describes Vietnamization as “Not merely modernizing the South Vietnam’s armed forces, but the positive goal of Vietnamizing the war, of increasing Vietnamese responsibility for all aspects of the war and handling of their own affairs.”


“We must stay with this job until the people in South Vietnam can provide for themselves conditions of reasonable security in which to farm their fields, raise and educate their children, elect their local leaders, live their lives in their own way under their own traditions – that is what we mean when we say determine freely their own destiny.”


Looking at  the progress of Vietnamization, Packard points to achievements in the economy: “…in the past three years, South Vietnam has trebled its funding of imports,  while the amount spent by the Agency for International Development  for this purpose has dropped by a third, …and [South Vietnam] is moving toward restoration of self-sufficiency in rice production.”


“In the field of local security, the police force has been expanded and its training strengthened. Partly for this reason, the Viet Cong infrastructure is being weakened and rooted out in many areas.


“In the political field, self-government has been brought this year to more than 700 villages and hamlets in recently pacified areas, bringing the total with self-government to about 8 out of every 10. There has been a notable increase in the number of citizens willing to seek local office and hence to face the threat of Viet Cong terrorism which has taken such a toll of local officials in past years.”


“The troop redeployments [of U.S. forces] so far announced have not been made possible by any progress in Paris or by any convincing evidence that Hanoi wants to reduce the level of combat. They have been made possible principally by the improved capability of South Vietnamese military forces.”


“The President has set a simple objective in Vietnam – permitting the people of South Vietnam to determine freely their own destiny. I cannot imagine how those who participated in the so-called moratorium activities on October 15 can take exception to that objective. It is incomprehensible to me that a group can exercise its right of self-determination to state that this very same right is unworthy of our interest and determination in South Vietnam.


“As I mentioned at the outset, our citizens must not only be informed of the policies of their government – they must have an appreciation for the effects of their expressions of dissent on the likelihood that these policies will be successful.


“The negotiations in Paris offer the best chance for the most rapid conclusion of the war. It is already clear that the demonstrations of October 15 have been interpreted by the enemy as a refutation of the President’s policies to achieve peace. Clearly any expression of dissent which has this result places a grave responsibility on the shoulders of those who are identified with it.


“The events of October 15 raise some very serious questions for this nation that in fact go far beyond the question of Vietnam. Two in particular should be pondered by those who did not participate and also by the vast majority of those who did participate. This vast majority were good American citizens, I am sure, trying to be helpful.


“Is the street demonstration the best method to use to influence foreign policy decisions of the Government? Will this method really contribute toward the common goal of a speedy attainment of peace in Vietnam? These are troublesome questions that remain to be answered.”


Packard states that “There is no person in the nation who is working harder for peace than the President of the United States. He bears the ultimate responsibility for establishing a policy to achieve this goal. This policy carries weight to the extent that it is undergirded by the will of a nation united in its commitment to the values given expression through this policy. Our society in the United States, with all its defects – and any institution devised by man must have its defects – is nonetheless the exemplar among nations offering man his best hope of fulfilling his great promise.”


Packard says the “Critics must recognize the responsibility that goes with the right to criticize. They must weigh the effects of their words both at home and in countries around the world. They must ask themselves if street demonstrations really contribute to the common goal of a speedy attainment of peace in Vietnam.


“I believe that the events of October 15 have given the North Vietnamese the incentive to continue to stall in Paris. If this is true, the cause of peace has not been advanced, and this would be a great tragedy.


“America is at the cross-roads in this fall of 1969. It is time for every man, woman and child in America who believes in our tradition of freedom, of democracy, of honor, to stand up and be counted – to stand up so President Nixon can see them – so their fellow Americans can see them – so the world can see them.”


10/16/69, Memorandum for Packard from Daniel Z. Henkin giving details on the luncheon arrangements.

5/14/69, Program and list of attendees at United States Armed Forces Day Report to the Leaders of the Non-Governmental National Organizations held on May 14. Packard is listed as making Opening Remarks.

1970 – Packard Speeches

Box 1, Folder 51 – Department of Defense


January 10, 1970, Launching of Bluefish, Electric Boat Co., Groton CN


1/10/70, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech.


Packard says he is “honored to play a part in the launching of this fine ship.” But he adds that “I am here only because of the function Mrs. Packard performs today in her role as sponsor…”


Packard reflects on the significance of the launching by noting that “today precedes by just seven days the anniversary of that winter morning in 1955, here at the Electric Boat Division of General Dynamics, when Commander Eugene Wilkinson ordered the crew of the NAUTILUS to cast off her lines. As most of you know, Rear Admiral – soon to be Vice Admiral – Wilkinson is here with us today, and I offer my personal congratulations to him for the important contributions he has made over the years to the nuclear power program.”


Packard also pays tribute to Vice Admiral Hyman G. Rickover – “the man who played the key role in the development of nuclear propulsion technology.” [Rickover was not present, Packard notes]


Referring to Rickover’s “pioneering work”, Packard says that “it takes extraordinary effort and dedication to transform vision into reality. Prior to NAUTILUS, there was no true submarine. Our early submarines using batteries and diesel engines were required to come to the surface frequently to charge their batteries and obtain oxygen for their crews….Only by harnessing the atom was man able to achieve the first true submersible, a ship that was at home under the water rather than on its surface.”


Packard mentions some of the achievements of the early nuclear boats: “On her shakedown cruise in 1955, in only 84 hours NAUTILUS traveled submerged more than 1300 miles – a distance greater by a factor of ten than previously traveled by a continuously submerged submarine.


“In August 1958, NAUTILUS …crossed from the Pacific to the Atlantic under the North Pole during a four-day, 1800 mile voyage. In that same month SKATE reached the North Pole and in the following year pushed her way through the ice to surface at the geographic North Pole.


“In 1960, TRITON, following the route taken by Magellan over 400 years earlier, went completely around the world in 83 days and traveled 36,000 miles without surfacing.”


“But in sharp contrast even with this impressive durability, the nuclear fuel installed in the BLUEFISH will provide power for about 400,000 miles of travel while costing slightly less than the NAUTILUS fuel.”


“The advent of nuclear submarines made possible the development of one of our most important strategic weapons. Even while the NAUTILUS was still undergoing operational testing, the Navy began development of the sea-based ballistic missile…. The POLARIS projects a new dimension of sea power, and the 41 POLARIS Fleet Ballistic missile submarines we now have in operation constitute a vital pillar of this nation’s security.”


“Nuclear propulsion has not been limited to submarines. The Navy presently has one nuclear powered aircraft carrier, a nuclear powered cruiser and two nuclear powered guided missile frigates. Today we are building the USS NIMITZ, our second nuclear powered aircraft carrier. We are also building two new nuclear frigates, the keel for the first of which, the CALIFORNIA, will be laid down later this month These ships provide the foundation of a nuclear powered surface Navy that can go anywhere in the world at instant notice.


“Why do we build such ships? As Secretary of Defense Laird has recently stated, we build them to keep the peace.


“If history teaches anything, it is surely that weakness invites attack. Our military power is our peace insurance. But military power is not enough: it must by backed up by an unshakable national resolve to defend our vital interests throughout the world.


“The Soviet Union understands seapower and she is mounting a formidable challenge to our ability to control the seas in wartime. It is clear that sea power will continue to be an indispensable instrument of our national policies and those of the Free World alliance, and that is why we continue to build those ships necessary to maintain a Navy equal to any challenge we may face.”


Returning to the BLUEFISH Packard says “She incorporates thousands of technical advances developed by our scientists and engineers over the last decade and a half. She represents one of the most sophisticated and complex weapon systems that can be built today.”


“All of you here at Electric Boat can take pride in this ship – a symbol of the finest effort of American industry and labor.


“I am enormously proud of the men and women who serve in uniform of our country. I am told that there are representatives of 38 nuclear submarines here today, and it is fitting that their wives are here as well, since they too share the sacrifices inherent in military service.


“Finally, we have that small group of men who will one day take BLUEFISH to sea. It is their judgment and skill which will make BLUEFISH an effective, fighting ship – a proud addition to the Navy. On behalf of your country I wish you and BLUEFISH success – and smooth sailing.”


1/10/70, Typewritten address from President Nixon apparently read by someone at the launching ceremony.

1/7/70, Copy of a telegram from Vice Admiral Rickover to Mrs. Packard congratulating her for being a sponsor of the BLUEFISH.

Undated, Copy of suggested guest list for the ceremony.



Box 1, Folder 52 – Department of Defense


February 13, 1970,  American Management Association, Gantt Medal Award, Chicago IL

Mr. Packard spoke at this luncheon after receiving the 1969 Henry Laurence Gantt Memorial Medal which is given annually by the American Management Association and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. The Medal is awarded for “distinguished achievement in management as a service to the community.” The recipients are “leaders who have demonstrated a profound understanding of management as something beyond the pursuit of profits for an organization or self-aggrandizement for an individual.”


2/13/70, Typewritten copy of speech by Packard with some of his handwritten notations.


Packard says  he is grateful for this award, but he is not sure whether it is in recognition of his work in the private sector, or for his present activities as Deputy Secretary of Defense. He notes “with some dismay” that 1969, the year he was away, was the best year Hewlett-Packard Company has had. And as for his governmental assignment, Packard concludes “that members of the Board are not regular readers of certain daily newspapers. If they did, their decision would certainly have been otherwise.”


Packard says he plans “to wear this medal whenever I testify before congressional committees.”


Packard talks about the differences between management in private industry and in the Defense Department – “sheer size…4.6 million people, military and civilian. ..assets of $200 billion. The Department annually engages in more than 200,000 procurement actions of $10,000 or more involving more than 100,000 prime and sub-contractors. It manages installations and facilities, equipment and manpower in all 50 states and in more than 100 foreign countries.”


“A second difference between management in the Department of Defense and in a private enterprise is in evaluating results. We have no profit and loss statement to work against. The weapons we build for the defense of our country serve the country best if they never have to be used. This is most emphatically true of our nuclear weapons.


“The performance of the Department of Defense can be measured only by the extent to which the Department contributes to the overall interest of the nation. All management decisions in the Department must be measured against this all-important criterion.


“Since so much of the business of defense is preparation to avert possible future calamity, only after many years will we be able to determine with complete assurance whether we are doing the right things in the right amount and in the right way today.”


Packard cites “two additional factors that make Defense management a difficult  — indeed, a hazardous – occupation.


“The first factor is the opposition to things military on the part of an articulate body of public opinion. When a large number of people view an enterprise with suspicion or hostility, the problem of giving effective management to that enterprise is compounded.”


“The second factor that currently adds to the difficulty of managing the Defense Department is the fact that the Department is no longer a growth industry. On the contrary, it is now in the throes of rather rapid shrinkage.”


Packard cites reductions in expenditures and manpower in FY 70 and planned for FY 71.


“While these special management problems are inherent in the Department, and are not likely to change, we have taken a number of steps during the past year which I believe are in the direction of much needed improvement.


“Three important steps are directed toward making better decisions on the size and character of military forces which are needed to support the national interest. These are the key decisions which must be made before questions relating to the kinds and numbers of weapons to be developed and procured can be addressed.


“Fist,  the National Security Council machinery has been revitalized to evaluate more carefully what the worldwide commitments of the United States should be, and what military force levels are necessary to support those commitments.


“Second, a new arm of the National Security Council has been established called the Defense Program Review Committee to address questions of defense policy at the level of specific military programs. The PackardRC has the task of considering major defense matters, not only from a military standpoint, but also from a broader viewpoint. In particular, this group addresses defense matters in relation to the non-defense priorities of the nation and recommends resource allocation between defense and non-defense programs.


“Third, we have made changes in procedures within the Department of Defense for developing budgets, five-year plans, and programs. The changes, which provide for more effective participation by the Joint Chiefs and the military services, are producing more realistic planning and budgeting and better teamwork among the services.”


Packard then turns to a problem they have been addressing – “the question of how to improve the management of the development and procurement of specific weapons and equipment. With the great furor this last year about cost growth and cost overruns, it should come as no surprise that we in the Defense Department are also concerned.


“As one examines programs which are in trouble – and we find lots of examples – there are some conclusions that can be drawn about the origins of the problems.


“It is clear that the problems of developing new and complex weapons and equipment have, in nearly every case, been under-estimated with the result that early estimates of both cost and time required for development proved faulty.


“Too much emphasis has been placed on meeting rigid time schedules with the result that production was undertaken too often before development was finished. The short cut of rushing into production before resolving the problems encountered in research and development has been costly.


“Altogether, too little attention has been given to controlling cost.


“Program managers have been rotated out of their jobs before they became fully effective to be replaced by new managers without prior experience with their programs.


“Authority and responsibility have been diffused among many offices and individuals so that decision making has been retarded.”


Packard then describes “one fundamental change in management concepts that is gradually being introduced in the Defense Department which I think will lead to improvement across-the-board -–the concept of selective decentralization.


“We believe that more decentralization will improve management efficiency. This involves reducing the number of layers of management, and a more precise definition of the responsibility and authority of various offices in the OSD and in the Services.”


“When Secretary Laird and I assumed office, it seemed that too many decisions had to be made at the top and that too detailed a supervision of operation was carried on in the Office of Secretary of Defense. We are shifting to the military services more decision making authority.”


“Increased authority at lower levels requires increased responsibility for results.


“This means more emphasis on people and so I cannot conclude a discussion of management of the Defense Department without a word about people, who, as you know, are far more important to successful management than procedures.


“We are seeking to open up channels through which bright ideas down the line can be brought to the attention of those at the top. We are seeking to broaden the flow of information on Defense policy throughout the Department. And we are doing our utmost to assure that no barriers exist to the upward movement of talented people – particularly barriers based on race or creed or national origin.”


“Successful management of the Department of Defense depends to an important degree on the quality of management in the private industry of our nation. This is true for a number of reasons. Those who come to us to fill managerial positions often have had experience and training in private industry. Further, we must look to industry to produce the equipment and the arms with which our armed forces defend our nation.


“At the present time the Department of Defense is taking advantage of the managerial talent of the private sector in the study of its organization and operation that has been undertaken by the Blue Ribbon Commission chaired by Gilbert Fitzhugh, Chief Executive Officer of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. The report of this Commission, expected in mid-1970 after its year long study, should result in greater efficiency and effectiveness in the use of the resources committed to defense.”


“I accept this medal, established in memory of a great pioneer of good management, Henry Laurence Gantt, with a commitment to do my best to apply those principles to the job of making sure this country receives maximum value for every dollar spent on defenses.”


12/13/70, AMA Program for the Conference and Gantt Award

2/13/70, Press release issued by the DoD Public Affairs office containing the complete text of Packard’s speech.

2/13/70, Copy of the program for the award event.

12/2/69, Letter to Packard from Theodore T. Miller, Chairman Gantt Medal Board of Award acknowledging Packard’s willingness to receive the Gantt Award.

12/10/69, Press release from AMA announcing Gantt Award.

12/16/69, Letter to Packard from Fred Lee, AMA, discussing details of the award ceremony.

12/23/69, Letter to Packard from Richard R. Deupree, saying the AMA had invited him to the Gantt Award honoring Packard, and he is sorry he will not be able to attend.

1/6/70, Copy of a letter from Packard to Lawrence A. Kimpton, Director, Standard Oil Company of Indiana expressing his appreciation that Mr. Klimpton will present him at the Gantt Award.

1/12/70, Copy of a letter from Fred E. Lee, AMA, to Lawrence A. Kimpton saying the AMA is happy to hear he will present Packard at the Gantt Award, and asking for a copy of his remarks.

1/18/70, Letter to Packard from Lawrence A. Kimpton saying it will be a pleasure to present Packard at the Gantt Award.

1/21/70, Letter to Packard from Fred E. Lee asking for Packard’s travel plans.

1/12/70, Copy of letter to Packard from John McClane AMA, asking for a copy of Packard’s speech if prepared.

1/13/70, Letter to Packard from Professor Paul E. Holden, Stanford, who says he received the Gantt Award in 1941. He regrets he will not be able to attend the presentation to Packard

1/22/70, Copy of letter to John McClane, AMA, saying Packard will not have a copy of his speech ready in advance.

12/14/71, Letter to Packard from Robert G. Butler, AMA , inviting Packard to the Gantt Award ceremony for the 1971 recipient. Packard has written “No”  at the bottom.

2/12/70, Copy of a telegram to Packard from Mel Laird congratulating him on receiving the award.

Also included are several pamphlets about the AMA and the Gantt Award



Box 1, Folder 53 – Department of Defense


February 19, 1970, Consequences of the Nixon Doctrine, American Enterprise Institute, Washington D. C.


2/19/70, Typewritten text of speech by Packard.


Packard says it is a pleasure to join the American Enterprise Institute at their annual banquet. He recognizes the contribution the AEI has made “to the improvement of communication and the elevation of the level of debate about public policy issues.”


Packard continues saying “One of the things I have learned in the course of approximately one year in public office is the difficulty of effective communication between government and the public. In every controversy in which the Department of Defense has been involved during the past year…we have had great difficulty in obtaining public understanding of the real issues. And a useful dialog on public policy is not possible without such understanding. I am aware also that there are some who permit their emotions to take charge in their consideration of certain issues and who do not want to understand.”


“So I am grateful for the help that an organization like AEI provides in offering objective analysis of policy alternatives. The clarification of issues is a great service to the strengthening of the political process by which the American people have chosen to govern themselves.”


Packard says there are many things he could talk about –“fires to put out – problems with new weapons procurement – problems with new weapons procurement – cost growth and – yes, cost overruns – to mention a few of the things that currently absorb my time and attention.


“This evening, however, I want to explore some aspects of the significant and profound change in the nation’s foreign and defense policy now in process of implementation.”


The new policy was announced by President Nixon during a TV address to the nation, and Packard lists the primary points:


“First, the United States will keep all of its treaty commitments.


“Second, we shall provide a shield if a nuclear power threatens the freedom of a nation allied with us or of a nation whose survival we consider vital to our security.


“Third, in cases involving other types of aggression, we shall furnish military aid and economic assistance when requested in accordance with our treaty commitments. But we shall look to the nation directly threatened to assume the primary responsibility of providing the manpower for its defense.”


“The Nixon Doctrine is a new policy for the United States, better attuned both to international reality and to the mood of the American people in the 1970s.


“Within our country a feeling had spread that the United States had become the world’s policeman and thereby had overcommitted itself. The long conflict in Vietnam with no end in sight and the growing strains of critical domestic problems had resulted in widespread disillusionment which focused on our foreign policy.


“The people of other nations which looked to us for protection had developed a kind of love-hate relationship toward us. Even while expecting continued support and defense from the United States, such nations became restive under what seemed to them excessive American tutelage, and, in some of them, anti-Americanism in varying degrees became part of their standard political rhetoric.”


Packard does say that “It should not be overlooked that these facts on international life, although they suggested the need for a new policy for the 1970s, do indicate that past policy was appropriate in the period in which it was developed. In most respects it achieved its objectives of providing effective security and fostering development for our friends and allies.”


“One of the dangers that faced the nation last year – and it is a continuing danger – is the possibility of overreaction against policies that were no longer appropriate. The swing of the pendulum from a policy that had become too paternalistic, both for the American people and for other nations, could very easily be so strong as to take us to the opposite extreme of isolationism and rejection of any international responsibility.


“The Nixon Doctrine avoids both extremes. It reaffirms our international responsibility and serves notice that we will not be a drop-out from the world community. At the same time it makes clear that we will not be the world policeman or the world fire brigade.



“The essence of the Nixon Doctrine is that the responsibility for international security should be shared. While the United States will continue to bear an important part of the burden, other nations will be expected to assume a greater responsibility in providing for their own defense.”


Packard says that “In Vietnam the first application of the Nixon doctrine is taking place. There, in an orderly way, the responsibility for combat is being transferred to the Armed Forces of Vietnam, and American troop strength and involvement in the conflict are being reduced.”


“A basic consequence of the Nixon Doctrine is reflected in the larger slice of the budget devoted to domestic needs and the smaller slice to defense. In fiscal year 1971, for the first time in 20 years the share of the federal budget devoted to human resources will exceed that allotted to military purposes.”


“This does not reflect any downgrading of defense.


“The protection of the nation is our first responsibility, and we must always maintain the strength required for this task


“Keeping this responsibility in mind, we are making cuts of some magnitude in the Defense budget. In current dollars, the Department’s expenditure in fiscal year 1971 is estimated at $6.9 billion less than in fiscal year 1969. In real terms, however, the reduction is almost twice this amount – a whopping $12.8 billion. This is the true measure of the program reduction that is being accomplished.”


Packard points out that these figures “portend some very important implications for the economy of the nation….There will …be important reorientation of resources.


“The curtailment of the claims on the nation’s resources for defense means a drastic shrinkage in the demand for manpower both for the armed forces and for employment in defense industry. We estimate that more than one million fewer men will be employed directly by the Defense Department or by private industry in defense-related production by June 30, 1971 than were on June 30, 1969. This should bring an easing of tight labor markets and of one source of the inflationary pressures that have troubled the economy.”


“On the other hand, Packard points out that “Over the longer time this transition of resources from defense to human needs poses problems which will impact on the entire economy  of the country. The problems of transferring scientists and engineers from defense problems to human problems is not easy….Unless other opportunities for employment become available, we must recognize the obvious fact that as total jobs in the industry are reduced, national unemployment could rise and the brunt could fall on those who are just beginning to make some progress toward their rightful aspirations.”


Packard says that in formulating their budget recommendations, Secretary Laird and he have been mindful of the “dangers of cutting too abruptly and too deeply….We believe that any reduction in the Defense budget beyond that submitted to congress would run serious risks of the kind I have described.”


Packard moves on to a discussion of the implications the Nixon Doctrine will have regarding the “long standing policy of assistance to friendly foreign nations.


“If our friends and allies are to assume an expanded role in defending themselves, certain steps must be taken to improve their military capabilities. Since many of these nations are still economically less developed countries, they are unable to stretch their won financial resources to acquire the military equipment, supplies, and services which they need immediately….”…there is a real need to get ahead quickly with the task of replacing obsolescent equipment.”


Since these countries will not be able to pay out the large funds required immediately, Packard says “…the Foreign Military Sales Act, and particularly its provisions for credit and credit guarantees for the lesser developed countries, will become an increasingly important tool for the furtherance of our common foreign policy objectives.”


Packard also says the Military Assistance Program can be considered  to assist those countries where “cash and credit sales will not suffice to meet essential needs.”


“Yesterday, in his message to the Congress entitles United States Foreign Policy for the 1970s, President Nixon spoke of the three cornerstones of a foreign policy that seeks to restore and maintain peace – partnership, strength, and willingness to negotiate.


“ I have chosen tonight to speak about the first of these, the concept of partnership as the President is implementing it.


“But these three principles are indivisible. Our foreign policy must be guided by all three if it is to make progress toward the goal of peace.


“The new road to peace on which we have begun will be long and arduous. We have embarked on a course of policy which the President declared is “an adventure realized not in the exhilaration of a single moment, but in the lasting rewards of patient, detailed and specific efforts – a step at a time.”


“We are far from the end of this road to peace, but we have taken our first steps.”


2/19/70, Copy of press release from the DOD with the complete text of Packard’s speech.



Box 1, Folder 54 – Department of Defense


February 26, 1970, University of Rochester College of Business Administration


2/26/70, Copy of typewritten text of speech by Packard. This speech is very similar to that which Packard gave to the American Management Association on the occasion of his receiving the Gantt Medal. Also included in this file is an outline of  his remarks at the University of Rochester. The following first gives a digest of from the text of the speech at the AMA, and then notes from his handwritten notes. It would appear he used both in his address at the U. of R.

From the AMA address text:

Packard says that the job of managing the Department of Defense “includes all aspects of management that are involved in any enterprise”… but he cites a few differences:


The first being size. “The Department currently employs 4.6 million people, military and civilian – almost as many as the 30 largest industrial companies. It is spending $77 billion dollars in the current fiscal year. Its assets run in the neighborhood of $200 billion, more than the combined assets of the 75 largest companies. In the private sector of the economy, more than two million workers are employed to fill defense orders. The Department annually engages in more than 200,00 procurement actions of $10,000 or more involving more than 100,000 prime and sub-contractors. It manages installations and facilities, equipment and manpower in all 50 states and in more than 100 foreign countries.”


“A second difference between management in the Department of Defense and in a private enterprise is in evaluating results. We have no profit and loss statement to work against. The weapons we build for the defense of our country serve the country best if they never have to be used. This is most emphatically true of our nuclear weapons.


“The performance of the Department of Defense can be measured only by the extent to which the Department contributes to the overall interest of the nation. All management decisions in the Department must be measured against this all-important criterion.


“Since so much of the business of defense is preparation to avert possible future calamity, only after many years will we be able to determine with complete assurance whether we are doing the right things in the right amount and in the right way today.”


Packard adds that there are “…two additional factors make Defense management a difficult – indeed, a hazardous – occupation.


The first factor is the opposition to things m8litary on the part of an articulate body of public opinion. When a large number of people view an enterprise with suspicion or hostility, the problem of giving effective management to that enterprise is compounded.”


Packard makes it clear he is not complaining about close scrutiny by Congress , the press, or the public, all of which he agrees are quite proper and necessary. “If it is responsible, it is wholesome and can be a spur to more efficient operation. When, however, surveillance is exercised in a way that needlessly erodes morale, it does not contribute to good management.”


“The second factor that currently adds to the difficulty of managing the Defense Department is the fact that the Department is no longer a growth industry. On the contrary, it is now in the throes of rather rapid shrinkage.”


“In the period from last June 30 through the next fiscal year, the military forces will have been reduced by 551,000 men and the civilian work force, by 130,000. Expenditures in FY 69 were $78.7 billion,…and we will spend less than $72 billion in FY 71.”


Packard says that while these special problems are not likely to change, they have implemented a number of steps over the past year toward improvement.


“Three important steps are directed toward making better decisions on the size and character of military forces which are needed to support the national interest. These are the key decisions which must be made before questions relating to the kinds and numbers of weapons to be developed and procured can be addressed.


“First, the National Security Council machinery has been revitalized to evaluate more carefully what the worldwide commitments of the United States should be, and what military force levels are necessary to support those commitments.”


Packard says the National Security Council has made a comprehensive study of the nation’s needs, and  “On the basis of that study, Defense needs have been allotted their place in a scheme of national priorities.”


“Second, a new arm of the National Security council has been established called the Defense program Review committee to address questions of Defense Policy at the level of specific military programs.”


“Third, we have made changes in procedures within the Department of Defense for developing budgets, five-year plans, and programs.”


“We have also been addressing the question of how to improve the management of the development and procurement of specific weapons and equipment. With the great furor this last year about cost growth and cost overruns, it should come as no surprise that we in the Defense Department are also concerned.”


“As one examines programs which are in trouble – and we find lots of examples – there are some conclusions that can be drawn about the origins of the problems.


“It is clear that the problems of developing new and complex weapons and equipment have, in nearly every case, been under-estimated with the result that early estimates of both cost and time required for development proved faulty.


“Too much emphasis has been placed on meeting rigid time schedules with the result that production was undertaken too often before development was finished. The short cut of rushing into production before resolving the problems encountered in research and development has been costly.


“Altogether, too little attention has been given to controlling cost.


“Program managers have been rotated out of their jobs before they became fully effective to be replaced by new managers without prior experience with their programs.”


“Authority and responsibility have been diffused among many offices and individuals so that decision making has been retarded.


“Changes in funding from year to year have required expensive modifications of programs.


“These deficiencies all have contributed to the well-publicized problem of cost growth for military equipment. In addition to these deficiencies, inflation has been an important contributing cause.”


Saying that he while he will not try to detail the changes introduced to secure more realistic cost estimates and better monitoring of progress through development and production, he mentions one fundamental change in management concepts that is being introduced:


“We believe that more decentralization will improve management efficiency. This involves reducing the number of layers of management, and a more precise definition of the responsibility and authority of various offices in the OSD and in the Services. Action to do this has been started during the past year, and again, we intend to proceed further during the FY 71 budget period.


“When Secretary Laird and I assumed office, it seemed that too many decisions had to be made at the top and that too detailed a supervision of operation was carried on in the Office of Secretary of Defense. We are shifting to the military services more decision making authority.”


Saying that these measures to decentralize the decision making process will put more emphasis on people, Packard talks about the importance of people.


“We are seeking to open up channels through which bright ideas down the line can be brought to the attention of those at the top. We are seeking to broaden the flow of information on Defense policy throughout the Department. And we are doing our utmost to assure that no barriers exist to the upward movement of talented people – particularly barriers based on race or creed or national origin.


“We want every person in the Defense Department to be proud of his organization and to feel tat he is an important person doing a vital job.”


Another point Packard emphasizes is that “Successful management of the Department of Defense depends to an important degree on the quality of management in the private industry of our nation. This is true for a number of reasons. Those who come to us to fill managerial positions often have had experience and training in private industry. Further, we must look to industry to produce the equipment and the arms with which our armed forces defend our nation.”


From Packard’s handwritten notes titled U. of R. College of Business Administration


“Interesting experience [Referring to his time with the Department of Defense.]


“Basic principles same [DOD and private industry]


[Management] Done through people”


“Some differences

[DOD] Complex organization

Services  – dual reporting


The complexity of the organization makes problems – as does size.


“Role of System Analyst


Performed a very important function in:

More objective evaluation of programs

Overall deployment of assets into balanced force structure.


“Services have developed capability and they should evaluate their own programs.


“Too much of a decision making function instead of an aid to decision making.


“Those who are responsible for implementing a decision should have part in making it.


“If people don’t accept decision they can find effective ways of thwarting it.


“There are judgments from experience and other factors that must be taken into account.



2/26/70, Program for Packard’s speech at University of Rochester, Guest Lecturer Series


Box Listing

Box 1, Stanford……………………….1957–1961; Folders 1/1–1/8

            HP Management………………1957–1994; Folders 1/9–1/35

Department of Defense……….1969–1970; Folders 1/36-1/54

Box 2,  Department of Defense………1970–1972; Folders 2/1-2/25

General Speeches……………..1954–1965; Folders 2/26-2/71

Box 3, General Speeches……………..1966–1974; Folders 3/1-3/49

Box 4, General Speeches……………..1975–1982; Folders 4/1-4/38

Box 5, General Speeches …………….1983–1995; Folders 5/1-5/46


Box 2, Folder 1 – Department of Defense


April 14, 1970, St. Louis Chamber of Commerce and American Ordnance Association, St. Louis, MO


4/14/70. Typewritten text of Packard’s speech with notations handwritten by Packard.


After repeating a quotation from Lincoln, Packard says “Lincoln’s words remind us that there is more to national security than military power and that serious threats to the security of a nation may arise within a society as well as from outside.


“Recognizing these truths President Nixon has been guided, not by a limited, but by a comprehensive concept of national security in designing his legislative program and the budget which he submitted to Congress in January.


“That National budget is characterized as a reversal of national priorities. Its most striking characteristic, when it is compared with the budgets of the preceding 20 years, is that it puts defense spending in second place. For the first time since our nation went to war in defense of South Korea, spending by the national government for human resource programs will exceed spending for defense purposes.”


“These are severe cuts that are being made in military spending, but these reductions are consistent with the Nixon Doctrine which looks to our friends and allies to carry a larger share of their own defense. The reductions will allow our country to spend more on non-defense activities, $25 billion more in 1971 than in 1969.


The decisions which underlie the President’s budget are the result of the most vigorous, searching, and comprehensive consideration of our national needs and resources that has ever been undertaken in Washington.”


“The group which makes the study and offers its recommendations to the President is the National Security Council. This agency is now performing the functions originally envisaged for it. The Council addresses the fundamental issues of foreign policy, clarifies our basic purposes, examines all alternatives, and recommends actions. It is the President, of course, who makes decisions.


“The major issues of defense requirements in relation to other claims on the budget are treated on systematic and integrated fashion by another group known as the

Defense Program Review committee.


“What is important to remember as that the Defense Program Review Committee and through it, the National Security Council, look to the totality of national needs and resources in making recommendations on the allocation of resources to defense purposes. They consider how much defense and what kind are needed to support United States interests around the world. They consider our domestic needs as well, weighing proposed defense expenditure against alternative uses of equal resources for meeting domestic problems. Finally, they consider what we can afford, weighing both international and domestic expenditure on the scale of the economy’s output.”


Packard says few would disagree that there are pressing domestic needs requiring greater governmental outlays: housing, education, health care, environment, crime, manpower training….


“…inflation remains a matter of serious concern, calling for restraint in total federal expenditure….


“Defense spending is being reduced so that more resources can be applied to urgent domestic problems without fueling further the fires of inflation.”


“I believe this step-up of non-defense spending can be justified in terms of national security. The first reason for making more of the good things of life available to many who cannot now attain them is that this is the right thing to do. But to reduce injustice, to end discrimination, to eliminate deprivation also dampens stride and conflict, and promotes the unity of purpose that is essential to security.


“There is little security for a nation whose people are not unified in some common purpose by a bond of mutual respect and trust. There is little security for  nation if a substantial number of its people believe they are left out of its society. There is little security for a nation if a large number of its people believe that it stands for nothing worth defending.”


Packard says the Department of Defense “engages in many activities which can and do make an important contribution to the resolution of domestic problems.


“As an example, the Department of Defense for some time has stressed the principle of equal opportunity. Within the military forces it has gone a long way toward attaining this goal. It has labored with considerable success to open up housing accommodations in the neighborhood of military installations to all who wear the uniform. It has required private contractors with whom it hoes business to meet the full requirements of the law in offering equal opportunity in employment.”


“There are many more things we do. We provide our young people in uniform extensive education and training which greatly improves the ability of many to achieve success in their future lives as civilians.


“We have many bases and facilities – and people – involved in effective summer programs for underprivileged children.


“We stand ready to assist states, cities, and local communities in the cases of disaster.


“I want to ,make it clear that merely spending more on domestic problems and less on defense is not a panacea for domestic strife. Yet, it can help as part of a coordinated program that goes to the causes of the conflicts which trouble the nation The new direction in which the President’s budget points is one in which the nation should move – always exercising care to avoid dangers of excessive reduction of our defense capability. “


With plans underway to reduce defense forces by more than 600,000 Packard acknowledges that some might ask “whether our security from outside threats will be adequately protected….


“It is true that we do not yet perceive any substantial abatement of the trouble and strife around the world that led the nation to build up its armed forces to the levels they had reached when President Nixon took office.


“The cuts that are being made in our armed forces are made possible, not because threats to peace have lessened, but because we expect other nations to assume more of the responsibility which we have been carrying for their defense.”


“This process is now in operation in Vietnam where 115,000 American troops have been replaced by South Vietnamese.”


“There is one area in which we cannot afford to lower our forces. We must maintain a credible deterrent against nuclear war. Hat is why we are asking congressional approval to proceed further toward the development and deployment of the SAFEGUARD antiballistic missile system.


“We hope that a meaningful agreement on strategic arms limitation will be reached by the representatives of our country and of the Soviet Union. It would be a mistake, however, to base our program on the assumption that an agreement will be reached.


“Our security in every sense inextricably linked to a healthy economy. Without the vast productive capacity of our economy, without its dramatic technological progress, without the brain power and skill of management and labor, we would have neither the weapons that provide security from threats from without nor the material well-being that helps to give security from threats within.


“There are some who say we must neglect our needs at home in order to discharge our international responsibilities. Others say we must return to isolationism in order to give adequate attention to domestic problems. President Nixon rejects both of these extremes.


“Last June, the President expressed his views to the graduates of the Air force Academy. He said”


“A nation needs many qualities, but it needs faith and confidence above all. Skeptics do not build societies; the idealists are the builders. Only societies that believe in themselves can rise to their challenges. Let us not, then, pose a false choice between meeting our responsibilities abroad and meeting the needs of our people at home. We shall meet both or we shall meet neither.”


4/14/70, Copy of Press release issued by DOD Public Affairs office providing complete text of Packard’s speech in St. Louis.




Box 2, Folder 2 – Department of Defense


April 24, 1970, Thomas Jefferson Awards Banquet, Washington D. C.

This was a banquet to honor the men and women in the Armed Forces news organization.


4/24/70, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech.


Packard says it is “a pleasure to be here with Lowell Thomas, Herb Klein, Dan Henkin, general Westmoreland and the top professionals of America’s new business….”


Packard talks about his experience with communications in the Hewlett-Packard  Company. He says they didn’t have much need to communicate with the public at large, but “I quickly came to the conclusion that a company newspaper increased greatly the effectiveness of a business organization. It was an essential means of communication with the employees.” He adds that he “has had an opportunity to look over the winning entries and it is clear that the unit, base, and shipboard papers and publications serve a similar vital functions with our Service people worldwide.”


“Americans want to know what is going on and this desire stays with them when they become members of the Armed forces. So it is a responsibility of the Department of Defense – though perhaps one of our less well known responsibilities – to assure that our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines continue to get the news – continue to be well informed – regardless of where they happen to be stationed.”


“To achieve this,” Packard says, “we publish more than 1900 newspapers and maintain more than 400 military radio and television stations throughout the world. The source of most of the national and international news transmitted over these networks is the civilian news media – the AP and UPI, the other syndicates and the national networks.”


“When Secretary Laird took office 15 months ago, he set as a major and primary objective establishing the credibility of the Department of Defense. This policy requires that maximum information be made available to the men and women in uniform as well as to the civilian population. The news and information which come through military news channels must be straightforward and factual, and neither tinted nor slanted.”


Packard singles out for special commendation “those who edit and staff the newspapers which serve many of our bases and major tactical units. They are the unsung heroes of the military news business. These newspapers – many published on mimeograph machines – are the military version of the small daily and the home town weekly. They provide the serviceman with the “news he can use”.


“These news papers keep the serviceman up to date on what is happening in his own back yard, and provide him with timely information important to his personal advancement and welfare. He looks to them for news about his friends and his outfit, and for information pertaining to his assignments, his promotions, his pay and allowances. It is the one newspaper in which he has a better than even chance of seeing his own name in print. This is the newspaper that he sends home to his family and friends.


“These military newspapers play a vital role in maintaining the morale of our military forces, and I am indeed pleased that they are being given special recognition here tonight, along with their more glamorous relatives, the military magazines and radio and television stations.”


Packard expresses his “appreciation and the gratitude of the entire Defense Department to the publishers of Time, Newsweek, and the Readers’ digest, for their sponsorship of the awards being given here tonight. I also thank the eminent representatives of the fourth Estate who have gives so freely of their valuable time to participate in the Symposium the Defense Department is proud to be associated with them in this endeavor.


“The Thomas Jefferson Symposium testifies to the desire and determination of the Department of Defense that servicemen be well informed, for it provides unexcelled training for more than 400 of our information specialists from all the services and from all parts of the world. We depend on these able, enthusiastic, and dedicated men and women to keep our armed forces informed about the events of the times, their heritage as American citizens, and their role in national defense.


“Through this Symposium, they have met, learned from, and, I am sure, been inspired by this group of top professional men from American journalism – a group which includes the co-dean of the Pentagon news corps, Mr. Charles Corddry of the Baltimore Sun.


“The Department is indeed proud to sponsor this Seminar. I am sure that our military information specialists have been enriched by this experience and that they will go back to their assignments with renewed confidence and inspiration. Some, I know, will return here next year to receive one of the Thomas Jefferson awards.


“On behalf of Secretary Laird and myself, I want to congratulate all of you young men and women who took part in this symposium. We recognize the tremendous importance of your work, and we are proud of the manner in which you are doing it.


“Thank you very much.”



Box 2, Folder 3 – Department of Defense


April 30, 1970, Crozier Award, American Ordnance Association Washington


4/30/70, Copy of the press release issued by the Public Affairs office which provides the complete text of  Packard’s speech. Attached to the press release is a note by Packard’s secretary, Margaret Paull, saying “Col. Furlong did not bring back the original of this speech after the dinner presentation.”


Packard says he accepts the Crozier on behalf of  the people he represents – “the military and civilian employees of the Department of Defense. These are the men and women who keep our armaments ready and thereby contribute to the maintenance of peace.”


Packard gives some background on Major General Crozier who was Chief of Ordnance of the United States Army for17 years – from 1901 to 1918.


“Because of the responsibility he bore for arming American forces during the initial period of our nation’s participation in the First World War, General Crozier was aware of the heavy costs of unpreparedness.”


Packard tells how when WW I began our armed forces were about the size of Sweden’s. During the war we had to rely on our allies for tanks, artillery, and airplanes. “Of  23,000  tanks on order in the United States, only 76 had been completed at the time of the Armistice.”


In WW II we were unprepared again. “As late as 1938, we were spending no more, to acquire armored vehicles than for horses, wagons, saddles, and harnesses.”


“World War II was followed by another period of neglect of our armed forces. When war broke out in Korea, again the nation was unready.”


“I is no exaggeration to say that our nation has been poorly prepared for three of the four major conflicts in which it has become involved in this century. The costs of unpreparedness in lives and in treasure have been tragically high. In the past, time has been granted to us to recover from initial setbacks, to arm, and finally to win the day.


“In the nuclear world of today, we cannot count on time to be our ally. We must be prepared at all times or we will not survive.”


“There are great pressures toward  a reduction of our military power in the decade of the 1970’s. The pressures come from the domestic front, both economic and political.


“We in the Department recognize the urgency of unmet domestic needs and the seriousness of the problem of inflation. To permit increased federal spending to meet these needs without further fueling the fires of inflation, the President has made significant cuts in the level of defense expenditures.


“The course we are following is a realistic course, not because of any significant lessening of the antagonism and tensions around the world, but because of the increasing ability of our friends and allies to carry a larger share of the burden of their own security. It will be a safe course if reductions are limited and carefully controlled to maintain a foundation of strength adequate and responsive to potential contingencies of the future. This foundation must include an adequate nuclear deterrent.”


“There are strong pressures, however, for reductions that go far beyond those which President Nixon has approved.


“The greatest concern that I have at the present time is that defense cutbacks will go beyond the point of prudent risk. The greatest responsibility that Secretary Laird and I have is to keep the nation on the course of orderly reduction in defense and to maintain a capability that will protect the American people in the years ahead.


“Our past experience should teach us that an inadequate level of defense spending is an illusory form of economy. In a month or two, a war eats up the savings realized over the course of many years by inadequate funding of defense. In a future war, unpreparedness would be more than costly It would be suicidal.”


“We must remember that in the past five years, the United States has stabilized deployment of strategic offensive weapons, while the Soviet Union has accelerated both their development and their deployment. Our nation has made no basic change in the force levels set in 1965-67. On the other hand, the Soviet Union continues to add to its total of strategic nuclear weapons. And, as we have recently seen, the Chinese are still on their technological track to a ballistic missile.


“As Secretary Laird and I have pointed out, it is not the strategic balance that exists today that disturbs us but the momentum established by the Soviet Union in its vigorous development deployment of strategic offensive weapons. The vigor of the Soviet effort is indicated by the fact that Russia now has more land-based ICBM’s than the United States. Nor can we forget the progress of Communist China toward an ICBM capability.


“For these reasons, the President has recommended to congress a modest addition to the SAFEGUARD Anti-Ballistic Missile program which was approved last year.”


“To forego the SAFEGUARD deployment is a gamble this country cannot afford to take.


“The course toward which President Nixon is steering the nation is in the direction of peace. His policy is one of responsible internationalism It does not contemplate a United States which will patrol the world as a global policeman nor a United States which abdicates responsibility and cowers in isolationism.

“Successful implementation of the President’s foreign policy requires a strong defense posture for our country as far into the future as any of us can see.


“The consequences of past failure to maintain such a posture are the casualties of three wars which have occurred in the lifetime of most of us here this evening.


“Let us not in the future be forced again to mourn the loss of young Americans who died because their country let its sword rusts. Let us not forget that, on our preparedness and our national resolve, depends the survival of our country.”



Box 2, Folder 4 – Department of Defense


May 12, 1970, National Association of Manufacturers, NAM Directors Luncheon,

Washington D. C.

5/12/70, Typewritten text of speech


Packard tells the audience that his remarks are “off-the-record and off-the-cuff.”


Packard describes the “major re-examination of the nations policies and priorities” which was recently undertaken. “This re-examination has resulted in what has come to be  known as the Nixon Doctrine based on three principles: partnership, strength, and negotiation.”


“This has resulted in a major re-direction of federal resources from defense into non-defense programs.” Packard gives some specific examples:


1. Redirection of resources with a balanced or surplus budget to maintain fight against inflation.


2. Direct larger share of resources into non-defense programs


  1. This has placed a stringent requirement on DOD to maintain strength of military forces at lower levels of expenditure –


FY 1969 – 78.7 B

FY 1970 – 77 B

FY 1971 – 71.8 B “


“Tremendous challenge to DOD and defense industry to improve new weapons development efficiency. We can do much to build a smaller but more effective military establishment.


“One of the important objectives of this exercise is to apply more of the nation’s resources to domestic programs. The reallocation of financial resources is significant. The resulting reallocation of people will – already is – generating some serious problems.


  1. We are doing what we can in helping local communities.
  2. The federal mechanism is not effective market place.
  3. The skills of the aerospace industry cannot be quickly reorientated. The impact on professionals – scientists – engineers – young graduates.
  4. Impact on lower job levels – the underprivileged”


“We have a special responsibility to help those fine young men and women who have been serving their country in the Armed Services when they are released to the civilian job market.”


“I make a special plea to the NAM to join with business and industry throughout America to five special priority in jobs to those men and women who have served their country…particularly over those who have burned their draft cards and made disruptive attacks on the great educational institutions of America.


“We all protest the right of protest – Our country must continue to face change as it has from its beginning some 200 years ago. It is that small minority that advocates the destruction of American system by force that must be  – and I am confident it will be – brought under control.


“And let me emphasize – I believe the young ;people have something to say….It is only a small minority of faculty and students who are bent on destruction – and let me repeat – that small militant minority must be brought under control.


Packard moves on to Cambodia


He explains that the North Vietnamese have refused to negotiate in Paris—and that the U. S. has instituted a policy of  “Vietnamization”  – gradually replacing American forces with South Vietnamese, which has been successful.


“The North Vietnamese have recognized the success of Vietnamization by changing their strategy. Their strategy is to operate harassing attacks against cities, villages hamlets and military installations. Their ability to do this is to a large extent determined by the fact that they have established large bases inside Cambodia along the border. This territory is occupied by the North Vietnamese. This occupation has been accepted by Sihanouk for the past four or five years. This has given the opportunity to the North Vietnamese to build up substantial installations and stacks of supplies in these sanctuary areas.”


when Lon Nol took over in Cambodia he requested the North Vietnamese to leave, and made it abundantly clear that he considered they were there in violation of the neutrality of Cambodia.


“This made it possible for us to undertake action against these bases on the first of this month. This was by far the most effective military action that could be undertaken to hasten the progress of Vietnamization.”


Packard concludes with a progress report on this operation, which he says has exceeded their expectations.


“Some 1200 tons of munitions have been discovered already and the amount is increasing every day.


“This includes thousands of weapons, millions of rounds of ammunition – 6 million rounds of 51 caliber anti-caliber ammo – used against helicopters – over 1800 tins of rice.”


“In addition, a large amount of medical supplies have been captured. One estimate is that 24,000 pounds of medical supplies will support a 320-bed division-level hospital for from 90 to 100 days ….”


Packard says that “The U. S. ground troop involvement will be complete by or before the end of June.


“We do not intend to enlarge our involvement in Southeast Asia – in fact, this action will bring closer the time when our boys will all be out of fighting I hope you will give your full support to the President in his decision – I hope when you go back to your local communities you will encourage your friends and associates to join with us all in supporting this important decision.”


5/12/70, Typewritten sheet listing the consequences of the FY 71 budget

5/12/70, Handwritten notes by Packard for speech

5/12/70, Typewritten transcription of tape made of Packard speech – incomplete.

3/31/70, Copy of letter to Packard from Edward C. Uhl Fairchild Hiller expressing appreciation that Packard willing to speak to NAM and giving details for luncheon.




Box 2, Folder 5 – Department of Defense


May 15, 1970, Armed Forces Day, Chamber of Commerce, Ft. Worth TX


5/15/70, Typewritten text of speech, with handwritten notations by Packard


Packard says Armed Forces Day is a time to reflect on the mission of the armed forces, grateful recognition of the service and sacrifice of the three and a quarter million men and women in uniform, and a time to show special regard for our service men who are striving to assure the peace in South east Asia.


He asks for special help in assisting the two million men and women who will be leaving military service over the next two years, help the 75% or so who will be looking for civilian jobs.


But Packard’s main topic is Cambodia. He goes over the reasons we are fighting there, and what the results have been.


“To gain perspective on this subject, one must understand President Nixon’s Vietnam policy, for the action in Cambodia is directed toward achievement of the objective of ending the war in Vietnam on terms which will assure freedom of choice for the people in south Vietnam. Those Americans who dissent in the name of freedom of choice should be the first to support this freedom for the South Vietnamese.


“One year ago yesterday, President Nixon offered in a speech to the nation and the world to negotiate a fair and generous peace to bring the war to an immediate end. The only point which the President insisted a peace settlement must contain is preservation of the right of the people of South Vietnam to determine their own destiny. Everything else, the President asserted, is negotiable.”


“Although we have not given up attempts to reach peace at the conference table, the failure to make progress by means of diplomacy forced the President to find an alternative route toward his objective – a route which Hanoi could not blockade by the tactic of non-cooperation.


“This route is called Vietnamization.”  Packard explains that this program is gradually replacing American forces with those from South Vietnam. “By the middle of next year, we will have turned over all combat operations to the South Vietnamese forces.”


“In short we have been methodically reducing our forces in Vietnam and we plan to continue that reduction. We plan to do this in an orderly way as South Vietnam attains even greater capability to defend herself.


“What is now being done in Cambodia is not a reversal of our policy to reduce our involvement in southeast Asia There is no change in our objective. On the contrary, it is a carefully considered plan to hasten the achievement of our objective.”


Packard explains how the North Vietnamese occupied border land in Cambodia for bases and supply dumps – with the acceptance of Cambodia’s leader Prince Sihanouk. For political reasons the U.S. did not attack these sanctuaries for over five years. But as the North Vietnamese were squeezed out of South Vietnam their v]bases in Cambodia took on more importance. When Lon Nol replaced Sihanouk he ordered the North Vietnamese out of Cambodia. The U. S. felt free to attack the North Vietnamese in Cambodia ”As long as these bases remain, the war could continue indefinitely and inconclusively. As long as the bases remained, the risks were substantial as more and more American troops were pulled out of South Vietnam.”


“It is solely because of the importance of the border areas to the success of our Vietnamization plan that we are helping clean them out.


“The action we are taking has been limited by the President both in terms of territory and of time The President has set a June 30 deadline on these operations and limited penetration by American troops to areas within 30 kilometers of the border.


“Some might question the wisdom of letting the enemy know where we will fight and when we will stop. The President has done so in this instance because he wants the American people to understand that this is a temporary and limited operation and that he – more than anyone else in this country – wants the war brought to an end.


Packard describes “the massive haul” of military supplies captured in Cambodia – supplies , tanks, ammo food that cannot be used against South Vietnam.


“We hope that we shall be able to celebrate an Armed Forces Day soon in a peaceful world in which no American is involved in combat anywhere. The coming of that day is being hastened by what our military forces are doing this day with patient courage.


“Let us who are not exposed to the danger and privation they must bear show the same patience and steadfastness.”


5/15/70 – News release from DOD Public affairs office including complete text of Packard’s speech.



Box 2. Folder 6 – Department of Defense


May 28, 1970, Formulation of Defense Policy, Naval War College, Newport , RI

5/28/70, Typewritten copy of Packard’s speech, including copies of projection slides which he refers to in his address. All this material is marked “SECRET”.



Packard says that he wants to talk about “the formulation of defense policy at the highest levels in our government. This decision-,making process is not confined to the Department of Defense; the issues involved directly concern many more. The role of the Defense Department and the other Executive Agencies concerned is advisory. The decisions are for the President and the Congress.




  1. National Security Objectives
  2. Strategies
  3. Resources”



Speaking about the points on the first slide, Packard says that formulating defense policy is a three-fold process:


“First national security objectives are determined; next, strategies are devised to achieve these objectives; finally, resources are allocated to accomplish the objectives. Once defense policy is set, it is our job in DOD to provide the most efficient implementation of the objectives with the resources available.”


Packard tells his audience that there are two basic reasons why it is important that they understand  the process for formulating defense policy: “First we in DOD cannot expect to perform our role effectively unless we understand the rationale of decisions made largely outside of the Department, determining the objectives established and budgets allotted; second, and even more important, although basic defense policy decisions are made by the President, they are made by him with the advice of his national security advisors. Thus we have a crucial role in this determination of defense policy. To make decisions on defense issues, the President must be informed, and information relating to defense comes to the President from the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff., his key advisors on defense policy. The preparation of this information is the product of many minds in DOD, and for those who are participating in this preparation now or in the future, it is essential that the issues involved in the formulation of national security policy are understood.”







Immediate Threat to U.S.


General Purpose

Assist Allies”


“Defense policy involves two principal elements for consideration,” Packard says, “strategic forces and general purpose forces.” He says that the only immediate military threat to our national survival is the strategic nuclear forces of the Soviet Union. “It is therefore obvious that we must provide an adequate defense against this threat. The strategic issues involves are essentially the proper response to the present threat, the anticipation of future threat, and the appropriate levels of confidence in our forces. These are relatively technical issues which are primarily our concern within DOD.”


Packard explains that the utilization of general purpose forces is a more complex problem. “These forces are designed primarily to defend our interests in other parts of the world – including assistance to our allies – not to defend our own territory. To determine what level of general purpose forces we should maintain, we must carefully evaluate our national interests in various areas of the world, assess the m8litary threat to these interest, estimate the capabilities of our allies to defend themselves, and finally, determine what U.S. military forces are necessary to protect our interest.


“You might think that after making this analysis, we then simply provide enough defense funds for the forces which are determined to be necessary. Unfortunately, the problem is not so simple; one crucial consideration has yet to be mentioned – the limited national resources available. This unavo8dable reality is often difficult to understand in a country with a GNP of close to one trillion dollars and the theoretical capability of affording a much larger defense budget than it now has or has had since [World]War II. The problem is that there competing claims for these resources.




Sector                                      Competitors


Total Economy                       Public vs. Government


Government                            Federal vs. State and Local


Federal Government               Defense vs. Domestic


Defense                                   Strategic vs. Gen Purpose vs. R&D, etc.


Strategic                                  ICBM vs. SLBM vs. Bombers, etc.”



Packard briefly mentions the fist two  listed, Total Economy [government vs. funds from the private sector via taxes] and, within the Government, the competition between federal, state and local governments for public revenues.

“Finally, and most significantly, there is a great competition within the federal government, including within DOD, for these remaining, limited resources. To be sure, a greater allocation of resources to defense means greater national security. However, the size of the allocation is necessarily restricted by competing demands which are also essential for this country’s well-being. The objective is to establish a reasonable balance between the security desirable and the funds available.


“This ever present problem has been especially acute in recent years. In order to cope with it, one of the President’s first actions upon assuming office was to order a sweeping review of national defense policy in National Security Study Memorandum 3, or NSSM-3”  Packard says he wants to describe the major steps in that review, “both to give you a background for the defense policy decisions which flowed from it, and to illustrate my broader theme of how defense policy is formulated. The review considered both strategic and general purpose forces, but for the reasons I have already mentioned, I will discuss only the general purpose forces section of the review.



  1. Organization and Plan of the Study


Slide 4             NSSM-3 STUDY PARTICIPANTS


Defense Department

State Department


Treasury Department



NSC Staff


Packard notes that “National Defense Policy at the most basic levels is not the sole concern of the Department of Defense, and in accord with this reality the NSSM-3 Review was a joint effort of all government agencies directly concerned with national security.” And he refers to the list on the slide.


“Among the participating agencies, the Defense Department had a principal responsibility for most of the issues involved, and I served as Chairman of the interagency group.








Slide 5,                        METHODOLOGY


  • Alternative Strategies
  • Alternate Forces and Costs
  • Five-Year Economic Projections
  • Domestic Programs and Costs


“The group’s methodology was as follows:

1.We postulated a broad range of alternative national strategies.


2. For each alternative, we designed a set of military forces and estimated their annual cost.


3. For a time horizon of the next five years, we projected GNP federal revenues, uncontrollable expenditures, and the residual for controllable programs, including defense.


4. We considered sets of domestic programs, with estimated annual costs, as illustrative competitors for the controllable federal resources.


“Last summer, the study was forwarded to the National Security council for review and then to the President for decision. No recommendations were made by the study group, although the President’s advisors, including the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, expressed individual recommendations. The result was a Presidential decision last fall which defined a general purpose forces strategy and set annual defense budgets for the next five years for planning purposes.


“B The Alternative Defense Policies


Packard says the first step in the NSSM-3 Review was the design of a wide range of so-called national “strategies”. However, he admits the choice of the word strategy may have been “unfortunate,” and had created some communications problems. So, he explains what they meant by the term strategy. “I know that you normally regard the development of strategy as the responsibility of the Joint Chiefs of Staff….What we meant by strategy was a broad set of national defense objectives which form the foundation of defense policy.


Slide 6,                        STRATEGY


President and Secretary of Defense

What is to be done


Joint Chiefs of Staff

How to do it



The establishment of such policy in the Executive Branch is the responsibility of the President and the Secretary of Defense. Of course such policy decisions are subject to the review of congress. The responsibility of the Joint Chiefs is primarily to recommend yow the forces should be employed to achieve the national objectives.”


Packard says the “NSSM-3 review initially considered nine alternative strategies, ranging from an isolationist fortress America concept to a strategy which would have provided forward deployed forces to conduct sustained conventional defenses simultaneously against the Warsaw Pact in Europe and against the Chinese in Southeast Asia and Korea.”


However, Packard explains, they soon focused on five strategies, the other four being “either infeasible or undesirable.”


Slide 7,                        ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES


  1. NATO  Initial Defense and Assistance for Allies in Asia
  2. NATO Initial Defense or Joint Defense in Asia (Korea or Southeast Asia)
  3. NATO Initial Defense and Joint Defense in Asia (Korea or Southeast Asia)
  4. Sustained NATO Defense and Holding Action in Asia or Initial Defense of NATO and Joint Defense of Asia (Korea and Southeast Asia)
  5. Total NATO Defense and Joint Defense of Asia (Korea and Southeast Asia)




Slide 8,                        VARIABLES IN STRATEGY


Geographic Areas

How many at the same time


Capability of Allies



Packard says “These five alternative strategies embodied four key variables:”


“1.The geographic areas for which we would consider the use of military forces.”


“2. The number of objectives we wanted to be able to meet at the same time.”


“3. Strategic warning.”


“4. Reliance we would place on capabilities of allies.”


“Slide 9,                      SEPARATE EVALUATIONS


State: – Foreign Reactions

CIA — Enemy Capabilities and Reactions

JCS – Military Risk”


“Each strategy was evaluated in terms of its major military risks and foreign policy implications. To this end, the State Department led a study which examined the likely impact of each strategy on our allies and on our foreign policy, and the CIA directed a group examination which estimated the capabilities of potential enemies and how they might react to the various strategies.”


“Slide 10,                    STRATEGY ONE


NATO Initial Defense and Assistance for Asian Allies



Major Risks – CIA and JCS


NATO: Cannot meet surprise attack following concealed mobilization


Asia: No conventional capability vs. CHICOM


JCS Comment: Inadequacy evident to all


Foreign Reactions – State Department


NATO: None, probability of Warsaw Pact aggression unchanged


Asia: Acceptable, pace reductions;

CHICOM might increase support for wars of national liberation”


“Strategy 1 would allow for forces to conduct an initial defense of NATO Europe while at the same time assisting Asia Allies against a non-Chinese attack. The major risks as assessed by the CIA and the JCS would be as follows: For NATO, allied forces would not be able to meet a surprise attack by the Warsaw Pact following concealed mobilization: for Asia, there would be no conventional capability against Communist China. The JCS contended that the overall inadequacy of the projected force structure to satisfy our defense commitments in Asia, even without a simultaneous European requirement, would be evident to all.

The State Department anticipated the foreign reactions to be essentially unchanged. For NATO, there would be no reaction from our allies since this alternative would not alter current NATO strategy in any significant way. The probability of Warsaw Pact aggression was also predicted to remain unchanged. In Asia, the strategy should be acceptable to our allies, especially if the reductions were made over a period of years. The State Department noted that Communist China might increase support for wars of national liberation.


“Slide 11,                    STRATEGY TWO


NATO Initial Defense OR Joint Defense in Asia


Major Risks – CIA and JCS

NATO: Cannot meet surprise attack following concealed mobilization

Delay in NATO if engaged in Asia

Coordinated Warsaw Pact CHICOM            unlikely – likely


Foreign Reactions  – State Department

No adverse reaction if they perceive U.S. maintain commitments”

“Strategy two dictated that the U.S. would be equipped to provide an initial defense of NATO Europe or a joint defense of Asia. (Asia being defined for these purposes as Korea or Southeast Asia). There would be a major capability in one theater and a reduced capability in the other, non-war, theater. NATO forces would again be incapable of meeting a surprise attack following concealed mobilization. Moreover, if U.S. forces were involved in Asia, there would be a corresponding delay in meeting required force deployments to Europe for initial defense. Concerning the possibility of a coordinated attack by the Warsaw Pact and Communist China, opinion was divided. As for foreign reaction, no adverse response would be expected as long as our allies considered U.S. policy as adhering to present commitments in all regions.”











“Slide 12,                                STRATEGY THREE


NATO Initial Defense AND Joint Defense in Asia


Major Risks – CIA and JCS


NATO: Cannot meet surprise attack following

concealed mobilization

Asia: Only one contingency


Foreign Reactions – State Department


None anticipated”



“Strategy 3 would provide sufficient forces for the U.S. to conduct simultaneously an initial defense of NATO Europe, a defense of Korea or Southeast Asia against a Chinese invasion, and forces to assist an ally threatened by a proxy war. The primary to NATO would again be that the forces could not meet a surprise attack following concealed mobilization. The main risk to Asia would be the fact that since this strategy would provide forces for only one mainland contingency against Communist China, U.S. Forces would not defend Korea and Southeast Asia simultaneously. No key foreign reactions would be anticipated.”


“Slide 13,                                STRATEGY FOUR


Sustained NATO Defense and Holding in Asia



Initial NATO Defense and Joint Defense in Asia


Major Risks – CIA and JCS

NATO: Cannot meet surprise attack following concealed mobilization

Disengagement in Asia could delay in NATO


Foreign Reactions – State Department

NATO allies find  unacceptable sustained nuclear or non-nuclear conflict in Europe


Emphasis on conventional capability viewed as weakening deterrent


JCS non concur with State Department evaluation on sustained defense”

“Turning to strategy 4, this alternative wold provide forces for a sustained U S. defense of NATO and a simultaneous holding action against a Chinese invasion of both Korea and Southeast Asia. The same risk to NAATO noted in the first three alternatives would be present: an incapability of meeting a Warsaw Pact surprise attack following a period of concealed mobilization. Moreover, disengagement from Asia and redeployment and reorientation to Europe would perhaps create such a delay that losses would be suffered by NATO countries As for foreign reaction, the State Department hypothesized that our NATO allies would view as unacceptable any strategy which contemplated sustained combat, either nuclear or non-nuclear, in Europe The State Department also concluded that with any U.S. increase in its conventional forces, there would be a weakening of the link between our conventional and nuclear force deterrents. The JCS disagreed with this assessment of NATO reaction, contending that such a strategy would be acceptable to these countries.


Slide 14,                                  STRATEGY FIVE


Total NATO Defense AND Joint Defense of Korea and SEA



Major Risks – CIA and JCS


No Major Military Risks


Foreign Reactions – State Department


NATO:  Allies oppose conventional defense as eroding nuclear deterrent

JCS non-concur with erosion of deterrent thought

If we deploy additional forces to Europe Soviets will increase their deployments


Finally, Strategy 5 would establish forces for a total NATO defense, designed to meet a surprise attack of the Warsaw Pact following a period of concealed mobilization, and a simultaneous joint defense of Asia. This strategy would not present any major military risks. In terms of foreign reaction, the State Department anticipated the same grounds for objection by NATO Allies as in Strategy 4. Again, the JCS disagreed with this assessment. Both agreed that if we were to deploy additional forces to Europe, the Soviets would increase their general purpose forces.


  1. Developing Military Forces to Implement the Strategies.


For each strategy, the group developed the military force structure which would be needed. This phase of the NSSM-3 Review was performed primarily within DOD. The careful study which this issue received within the Department revealed a great difference of opinion on the level of forces which would e adequate for each strategy.


As a result, the study included two sets of forces for each strategy, one proposed by the Secretary of Defense and another by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This difference is attributed to contrasting understandings of what is meant by forces “adequate” for a strategy. The JCS believed that substantially higher levels of forces were needed for each strategy. The forces proposed by the JCS would ensure a high degree of confidence in meeting the strategies. The force levels proposed by the Secretary of Defense were based on a different judgment regarding the acceptable amount of risk.


“Slide 15                     FORCE SUMMARY


FY65      FY71      1          2          3          4          5


Active Divisions      192            17B

SecDef                                        133      141      17B      20B      242

JCS                                             182      202      212      212      212


Tactical Air Wings   39              39                                                                                         SecDef                         35        40        48B            83B               982                                    JCS                              41     47        56        60        69


Attack Carriers        16              15                                                                             SecDef                         11        11        11        11        11

JCS                                             12        14        16        17        19


SSNs                        21              52

SecDef                                        78        78        78        78        78

JCS                                             78        78        78        78        78”


A force summary chart illustrates the representative general purpose force levels presented by the Secretary of Defense and the JCS for these five strategies. I want to emphasize that these were representative forces. There was no intent that these specific levels or balances would be those finally recommended by either the Secretary of Defense of the JCS. The chart also includes force levels for fiscal years 65 and 71 with which the various levels for each strategy can be compared.





“Slide 16                                 STRATEGIC FORCES


  • Over 1,000 mm and Titan ICBMs


  • Over 350 B-52s


  • 656 Polaris/Poseidon on 41 SUBs




  • Limited Air Defense


Cost:                       Direct  –     $8 B


Overhead  –    $10 B


Total:                $18 B”



“Turning briefly to strategic force levels, the next chart is a summary of strategic forces and their costs, assumed in preparing the total defense budget for this study. These levels generally represent the result of our earlier examination of strategic issues.”


“Slide 17                     Costs of Alternate Forces


$ Billions Average 1971-75




1             2             3             4             5


Sec Def          72           76           81           93          102



JCS                84           90           98          103        112”



“After developing the force structures, we then provided estimates of the annual costs of each for the different strategies.”






“Slide 18,                    Resources


1970          1971          1972          1973          1974          1975


Receipts                      199            205            221            237            255            273

Less Tax Reform       —             -2              -7              -10             -11             -12

Net                              199            203            214            227            244            261



Outlays                       116            126            134            140            145            152


Net for Controllable

Programs                  83              77              80              87              99            109”


“The third major phase of the study was an examination of the resources which were potentially available for defense. This section of the NSSM-3 Review was conducted by the Bureau of the Budget, the Council of Economic Advisors, and the Treasury Department. They first projected GNP for the next five years. Assuming the existing tax structure, which at that time did not include the recent tax reform, they then estimated federal revenues for the same period. Next, they estimated the relatively fixed, or uncontrollable, demands on the federal budget. These items are those which cannot be varied except by major legislative changes, and include such things as interest on the national debt, social security and various health and welfare programs, veteran’s benefits, and farm support. Subtracting the uncontrollables from the total revenues yielded a sum which was potentially available for discretionary, or controllable programs, including defense”.


E. Domestic Programs


“Slide 19                     DOMESTIC PROGRAMS


  1. Welfare Reform, Revenue Sharing, Mass Transit, Education, Crime Control, Highway Safety, Pollution Control, Child Care


  1. Airway Modernization, Expanded Aid to High Education, Mental Health, International Development


  1. Urban Renewal, Expanded Medicade, Recreation Programs, Post Office Modernization


  1. Accelerated Space Program, Expanded food Stamp Program, SST, Merchant Marine Modernization”


“The economic group also prepared another part of the review, which was perhaps the most original aspect of the study. Possible new domestic programs of the Federal Government were grouped into for tiers. The first tier consisted of programs to which the Administration had already made some commitment. The other tiers represented increasingly ambitious domestic programs. The placing of the various programs into each tier was not precise, and estimates of proper priorities could easily differ. The essential aim was to estimate explicitly the costs of alternative sets of domestic programs so they could be compared with the alternate defense strategies.”



“Slide 20                     The President’s Problem for FY 1973



Net Available for Controllable Programs – $87 B


Alternate Demands


Defense Strategies       1                2                3                4                5

71              75              82              96              108


Domestic Tiers           1                2                3                4                                                    15        20        28        40”


“The next chart indicates the relation of the domestic tiers to the defense alternatives and the funding options available for decision. For example, it reveals that Strategies 4 and 5 would not permit funding of even the first tier of domestic programs without raising taxes. None of the defense programs would allow the third or fourth tier to be funded. Within Strategies 1, 2, and 3, the greater the defense program the fewer the available funds for domestic programs. Naturally, the choices are hard ones. They are made even more difficult by the fact that since the NSSM-3 study, future federal revenues will be significantly reduced as a result of the Tax Reform Act of 1970.If NSSM-3 were updated, the table would show that no additional domestic program is compatible with any defense alternative other than Strategy 1 To be sure, the constraints set by the study and indicated on the chart were not absolute. The level of funds available could be altered through the exercise of any of four possible options: a tax increase, deficit financing, a modification of Presidential initiatives, and a reduction in programs now established by legislation.”


F. The President’s Problem


“With this content, NSSM-3 brought before the President in concrete terms a range of defense strategies and domestic programs, and an estimate of national resources. The President’s problem was to find the most reasonable balance. Again, the funding levels were not concrete and could be changed through the adoption of one of the available options. However, the likelihood of these options being exercised must be considered. In the face of the recent tax cut, it is difficult to advise the President that he should raise taxes; in the midst of inflation, deficit financing is hardly attractive; it is unlikely that much can be done to curtail spending on existing uncontrollable programs.


“Thus, one of the inescapable realities made apparent by the NSSM-3 Review is that in deciding defense policy the President has only a very narrow range of options with which to work. No one option is entirely satisfactory, The resources are limited; the legitimate claimants are many. It is not just the President who must be aware of this reality. All government agencies and the people formulating Policy

Within them must recognize the problem and structure their advice with the facts and limitations squarely in mind.





“The issues examined in NSSM-3 did not disappear after the study was submitted and the President had made his decision. Issues of national security and budgeting have been and always will be subjects of government concern. Therefore, late last year, the President established a new organization, the Defense Program Review Committee, to undertake continuing studies of defense policy and resource allocation. As in NSSM-3, the Committee’s analysis of these considerations is not made in the vacuum of national security objectives. The p9litical, diplomatic, and economic implications of resource allocation are also examined, and it is only after these factors are weighed that priorities are established. To this end, one of the Committee’s responsibilities is to keep NSSM-3 up to date. Such as by noting revised economic projections and changes in the international situation The Committee is also refining the ISSM-3 analysis, for in many ways NSSM-3 was a pioneer effort. The PackardRC is clarifying our understanding of the strategy the President has chosen and the threats we face, and we in DOD are looking particularly at the general purpose force structures which are needed to implement the strategy.


“The members of the Defense Program Review Committee are essentially the same group which developed NSSM-3, with the President’s Assistant for Domestic Programs, John D. Ehrlichman, periodically joining them Mr. Ehrlichman is in the process of setting up a Domestic Affairs Council which will subject domestic programs to the same type of evaluation which defense issues receive from the National Security Council and the Defense Program Review Committee.


“The Objective of each of these groups is to provide the President with the best possible information and advice on the complex issues he must decide. The issues are essentially defined in terms of resource allocation. The underlying consideration, as I noted before, is that the resources available are limited. Because of this, the federal government simply cannot provide finds for all the ends it would like to achieve. Allocations must be determined and the basis for them involves much more than issues of accounting. Very difficult choices in terms of benefits, values, and priorities must be made, and for the President to make the best decision , he must have the best information and advice. This was the intent of NSSM-3 and is the continuing intent of the PackardRC.



  1. Determining Defense Policy


“I have tried to explain the issues which the President must consider in determining defense policy and budgets. Too often I have heard grumblings in the Pentagon that “The fiscal tail is wagging the strategic dog.” This phrase recognizes the relation of resources to policy, but it grossly oversimplifies the problem. We must have sufficient forces for national security, but in deciding how much is sufficient, we must resolve complex issues involving the evaluation of national interests and risks and the creation of priorities. A determination of defense policy made in absence of a consideration of these issues would be meaningless.


“B. Pressures on Defense Budgets


“Once we in DOD have performed our roles as advisors to the President, and after decisions on defense policy have been made, our job shifts to implementing the decisions as efficiently as possible. In this capacity, it is our explicit responsibility to provide the President with as much military capability as possible within the resources allocated to defense. This allocation is based on assumptions regarding levels of risk and commitment. As implementors of the President’s policy we must make every effort to maximize the limited resources which we have available. The force levels upon which risk levels and commitment were based and resources determined must be sought. If the force levels cannot be achieved with the funds available, the result may not be an allocation of more funds to defense. Instead, the reluctant response may initially be to accept lower levels of commitments. The responsibility of DOD is here obvious.


“In designing force structures, we have to consider the President’s resource problems. If we believed those problems could be easily solved, or that they are only temporary, we would be making serious mistakes in designing forces. The facts are that the defense budget has declined for the last three years as a percentage of GNP; it now has the lowest share (35%) of the federal budget since 1950.


“Despite the decline, you can understand the pressures on the defense budget by looking at estimates for FY 71. Revenues will be about $200 billion, uncontrollables about $90 billion. The FY 71 defense budget, therefore, represents about two-thirds of all funds subject to the President’s discretion.


“We must recognize that the budget squeeze is not just a temporary phenomenon but rather a permanent fact of life. We must consider realistic fiscal limits to design efficient, balanced force structures for the future.”


3/19/70, Copy of letter to Packard from Daniel Henkin, Public Affairs Department saying the Vice Admiral Richard G. Colbert invites Packard to be the principal speaker  at the Military Strategy Study.



Box 2, Folder 7 – Department of Defense


June 3, 1970, Remarks of David Packard, Deputy Secretary of Defense at Graduation Ceremony of the 1970 Marine Corps Command and Staff College, Quantico, VA


6/3/70, Typewritten text of Packard’s address with some handwritten notations.


Packard notes that about 25% of those graduating are from other branches of the U.S. armed services, or are serving with the armed forces of other countries. “I am sure this group, who are not Marines, must share my great respect for the United States Marine Corps.


“Marines are proud,” he says, “and they have a right to be for many reasons. One of the reasons is the talent for innovation which the Marine Corps has shown.”


Packard gives several examples of this innovation. “It was a group of dedicated Marine officers centered here at Quantico who evolved the doctrine of amphibious operations – a doctrine which guided the armed forces in warfare in the Pacific during World War II and which still serves as our basic doctrine.”


“In 1965 when the survival of South Vietnam hung in the balance, the Marines went in first – mainly because, true to the motto the Corps, they were ready.


“In Vietnam, faced with a new kind of war in which our country had had no recent experience, Americans quickly learned how to fight it.


“It was the Marines who first put into effect a civic action program in Vietnam, recognizing that the struggle was more than a military contest. It was the Marines who devised the Combined Action Program which has been so effective a means of developing the capacity of the South Vietnamese forces to defend their country.”


Packard tells the graduates “Now that you have finished your course of study here at Quantico you are looking forward to the next step ahead in your careers. I suspect that the question ‘What lies ahead?’ is very much on your minds.


“We are going through a very troubled period in the history of the world. It is always difficult to foresee what the future holds, and especially difficult in a period of rapid change such as we are in today. But the future can be influenced by what people want it to be, and we therefore have a responsibility to chart a course for the future and to do our best to hold to that course.


“A society is the image of the individuals. It is not what [we] read in the papers. It is not the minority of dissidents. You men here today represent the best. I speak for the majority in saying we are proud. As individuals you can influence the future – [with] higher standards for your personal life – [and] as members of the Armed forces.” [This paragraph is handwritten in by Packard and is a little cryptic.]


“Packard says that the role of the Armed forces of this country “is to support and advance the interests of the United States in whatever way is necessary, and wherever they may be.” He asks, “What, then, is the direction in which we want to go in the future?


“President Nixon has charted the course well when he said we want to move in our relations with other nations around the world from an era of confrontation to an era of negotiation.”


“The Nixon Doctrine, while reaffirming our treaty commitments and our determination to offer a shield against nuclear powers, declares it to be our policy to expect other nations to assume primary responsibility for furnishing the manpower needed for their defense.


“The essence of the Nixon Doctrine is a partnership between the United States and other nations in which responsibility for international peace and security is a shared responsibility instead of one borne in disproprotionate [sic] measure by our country.”


Packard points to Vietnam, where the responsibility for combat is being transferred to the Armed Forces of [South] Vietnam, as the first application of the Nixon Doctrine. “And,” he says, “American troop strength and involvement in the conflict are being reduced.


“I need not tell this audience, which includes so many who have served in Vietnam, how important the current operations in Cambodia are to the attainment of our objectives. Crippling the enemy sanctuaries across the border reduces substantially the risks involved both for our remaining forces and for the people of South Vietnam as we continue to reduce our troop strength in Southeast Asia. One very gratifying result of the Cambodian operation is the demonstration of the capacity of the Armed Forces of Vietnam to conduct effective combat operations on their own.


“Our diminishing involvement in Southeast Asia and the increased assumption by other nations of responsibility for their defense make it possible to reduce our military forces and our defense budget.


“This, in turn, will allow a larger share of federal resources to go into domestic programs in the future.”


Packard says that budget reductions “can be offset to some degree by better use of resources.”


But he goes on to say that “It must be recognized, however, that increased efficiency will not be enough to make up for all the military cutbacks required by this reorientation of federal resources. Immediate combat capability will be lessened by the time we finish trimming the armed forces down to a size that fits the constraints of the federal budget.


“In terms of program, the part of our budget that is being most drastically reduced is General Purpose Forces. Our strategic forces under the Nixon Doctrine have a responsibility that is undiminished. If there is to be a nuclear capability for the protection of the nations of the Free World, it must be supplied by the United States.”


“Nor can we safely reduce spending for research and development in the present climate in international affairs. The military strength which our nation will have five or ten years from now will depend on the quantity and quality of our research and development effort today.”


“As our forces are cut, we must remember that there is a reasonable level of safety for our people and their vital interests throughout the world which must be maintained. To permit our military power to decline below that level is to tempt potential aggressors to action that can shatter the uneasy peace that exists in many trouble spots around the globe.


“Peacekeeping is the purpose of our Armed Forces. I need not tell those in this audience – more than 80 percent of whom have served in Vietnam – that we want peace. We want peace. We want an honorable peace in Southeast Asia as speedily as it can be attained. We want to see peace restored in the Middle East. We want to have peace maintained everywhere else in the world.


“If there is anything that our past experience demonstrates, it is that military weakness is not the way to achieve or preserve peace. And so, as we reduce our military forces, we must stop short of the level at which they can no longer effectively do their share in peacekeeping. The military power of our country must always be a credible deterrent to aggression which could threaten our people and their interests.”


“This, then, is the role of the Marine Corps for the future course ahead. The Marines must continue as the elite unit of the United States Armed Forces – well trained – combat ready – poised to respond quickly as an element of force to support the interests of the United States wherever they may be. In short, we are depending on you men who are graduating here today to carry forward in the proud tradition of the United States Marine Corps.


“We wish you success and the satisfaction of accomplishment in the years ahead. We are confident you will met this challenge and this responsibility wisely, courageously, and effectively.”



Box 2, Folder 8 – Department of Defense


June 24, 1970, Defense Policies for the 1970s,  The Brooking Institution, Washington D. C.


6/24/70, Handwritten outline for address, written by Packard. The complete text is quoted as written.


“ DOD responsibility to provide military capability necessary to support U.S. interests and commitments around the world.


Direct threat to security of U.S. very small


Policy since WW II


Limitation of Communist expansion and influence

Europe –Nato-Mideast-Asia-Korea-India-Pakistan-Iran


Military Aid

Direct involvement


Changing world


Soviet strength

Nuclear – High Level

Naval   –   High R & D

Ground force


Sino-Soviet Conflict

Attitude of Allies

Domestic problems


Strategic Nuclear Problem


Soviet build-up of forces

Land based ICBMs

40% more operational or under construction

Considerably more payload


Sea based missiles

Equal force operational 1974

ABM Operational around Moscow


Very heavy Air Defense


Expenditures in recent years about twice U.S.

We have superiority in bombers

MIRV [Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicle] will provide assured penetration but lower total destination force


SAFEGUARD ahead of Soviet ABM


Criteria for Sufficiency

  1. Assured destruction
  2. No incentive first strike
  3. Soviets would not come out significantly better


The possibilities of an Agreement


Strategic forces – 12 Billion

Great field for peaceniks – fellow travelers and do-gooders – infiltrate of real enemy


General Purpose Forces


NATO – Alternatives

  1. Maintain present forces

2.   Reduce present forces

  1. Mutual force reduction


NATO commitment forces cost both manpower level and cost of new systems

Tac Air


Character of other weapons



1.  More reliance on allies

2.  Encourage cooperation among free world forces

  1.                            3.  Continue to take direct responsibility


Naval Forces


These issues must be translated into specific forces – planning must take into account


  1. Current situation and future trends – long lead time
    1. Readiness – active forces
    2. Reserves and training
    3. Future forces – weapons for 1975-1980
    4. Research and development


  1. Other demands on federal budget – domestic vs. military priorities
  2. Fiscal policy – surplus – deficit – inflation



Defense Department has taken lead in planning


  1. We have the largest discretionary share of Federal budget

Going down 4.5% – 3.4%

  1. Have best analytical capability on budget matters – also have largest                             number on Monday morning quarterbacks.
  2. Have taken lead in planning NSSM 3 – PackardRC [National Security Study Memorandum – Defense Program Review Committee]”


The balance of the outline is a list of statistics. Several pages of statistical reports are attached for reference



Box 2, Folder 9 – Department of Defense


August 20, 1970, New Policies in Defense Management, Armed Forces Management Association, Los Angeles CA


This was the 17th Annual Conference of this association of defense contractors. Packard was the dinner speaker.


8/20/70, Typewritten text of Packard’s address, with many handwritten notations by him.


“Many of you…may expect me to talk about what a grand job we have all done and how necessary we are for one another. I am not going to do that. I am going to talk about the things we have been doing wrong and the things that we have to do better. Let’s face it — the fact is that there has been bad management of many Defense programs in the past….most of this waste of taxpayer’s dollars has been due to bad management, both in the Department of Defense and in the Defense industry. We can and will do something about that.”


“Frankly, ladies and gentlemen, in Defense procurement, we have a real mess on our hands. It has been a mess for a long time and that fact is just recently showing up. The question you and I have to face up to is what are we going to do to clean it up.


“Let me first mention two things that won’t help.


“It won’t help for Congress to legislate detailed and inflexible rules governing procurement.


“Nor will it help to put the General Accounting Office in the process of making management decisions. The GAO deserves the highest marks for auditing, but the talents of a good auditor are not identical with those of a good manager.”


Packard says there is a lot of pressure to insert Congress and the GAO into the details of day to day management decisions in the Department of Defense. “Until we in the Department and you in defense industry demonstrate that working together we can provide capable and efficient management, these pressures will continue. In fact they will get worse.


“I have been in this job now for 19 months. Frankly, I am ashamed I have not been able to do very many of the things that need to be done to improve the situation I found here in January 1969. The most frustrating thing is that we know how we ought to manage – you, me all of us – and we refuse to make the changes we all know should be made.”


“We must find a way to do this job right, and you bear as much responsibility as I do.


“We need good people – and by that I mean you – who will step up to their responsibilities. That is what decentralization is all about.


Packard says that he recently issued a memorandum [May 28, 1970] of guidelines for Major Weapons System Acquisition. “There is nothing in this memorandum that you don’t already know. As a matter of fact, the management principles in my memorandum are so simple that anyone who could not have written the memorandum himself doesn’t belong in management.”


Packard says Admiral Rickover came to see him after he issued his memorandum. “He told me that the principles were great but that if we couldn’t get to the system that sits on top of the manager, nothing useful would happen. He is right.


“I know Secretary Laird and I bear the responsibility for the system in the Department of Defense, and I am going to keep working at it. But you in industry bear a similar responsibility, and I expect you to do the same thing.”


“In my memo I talked about policies for development of new weapons. The lesson that comes through loud and clear here is we should buy only what we need – not weapons you or anyone else thinks they can develop to do something that doesn’t need to be done. The Defense Department has been led down the garden path for years on sophisticated systems that you promised would do all kinds of things for some optimistic cost. Too frequently we have been wrong in listening to you, and more frequently you have been unable to deliver on either of these promises – what it would do or what it would cost. And we all in the past have too often been guilty of over-optimism on our cost estimates and over-demanding in our requirements.

“We share the blame together, but the mistakes of the past cannot be repeated if we are to provide for the nation’s defenses in today’s climate of a critical public and a critical Congress. We are going to buy only things that we need, and we are going to make sure they work before we buy. We must know what we are going to do and how to do it before we go into production. We are not going to put new weapons into development until we are sure we need them, and we are not going to put new weapons into production until we are sure that they work.


“This has been a short speech. I have tried to speak very frankly and directly this evening because the problem is very real. It is you people here tonight and the Department of Defense that must take action to solve these problems. We recognize that these problems cannot be solved overnight and perhaps some of them cannot be solved at all, but it is very clear that it is unacceptable to continue to do business as we have done it in the past.


“The things I have had to say tonight and the things I said in my

memorandum are simple. Many times we have done a bad job – we must do a better one. We must know what we are doing before we do it, and we must manage these programs better. We have many obstacles in front of us and most of them we created ourselves. We have given our critics the opportunity to find us at fault, and we run the danger that their efforts to direct Defense management will just compound the mistakes in the Department. We don’t need more supervision and more people in the act. We need fewer people. The system in the Department of defense is going to change. Secretary Laird and I are going to demand it. I expect you who are here tonight and everyone else who does business with the Department of Defense to do the same. That is all I have to say.”


8/20/70, Press release from the DOD Public Affairs Office containing the complete text of Packard’s speech.

8/20/70,  Copy of the printed program for the conference

8/20/70,  Copy of the program and guest list.

10/28/70 Letter to Packard from Robert R. Gros, VP, Pacific Gas and Electric, complimenting him on his talk. A newspaper clipping covering the event is attached.



Box 2, Folder 10 – Department of Defense


September 18, 1970, Department of Defense Airlie House Conference


9/18/70, Typewritten text of Packard’s remarks. The last three pages are handwritten in outline format. Packard is speaking to a group of DOD managers at what appears to be a two day “retreat.” These remarks are preliminary to group discussions on some of the current problems.


Packard says at their meeting a year ago he didn’t say much. But at this meeting he hopes “we can address some of the issues we must address in a honest, frank, and straight-forward manner, and I am sure if we do so this meeting will contribute to our ability to work together and get some things done which must be done.”


“Our department has been subject to criticism on a daily basis,” he says, “from the press, the Congress, and the public at large….”


“It will certainly serve no useful purpose for us to deplore the situation in which we find the Department of Defense, to apologize, to feel sorry for ourselves, or to otherwise pass the buck because…the buck stops here – stops with you and me, with all of us who are in this room and at this conference this week. We are the ones who are going to do something about it, if something, indeed, is to be done.”


Packard says that “It is my job today to tell you what I think we must do.” He admits he will not be right all of the time, but “whether the course I recommend is basically right or wrong, [will depend on] whether you people in this room agree that this is the way we should go or not. If I make a recommendation on a particular course of action, and you who are responsible to implement that course of action  agree with the recommendation, that course is bound to be successful. If you don’t agree, no matter what the merit or logic or justice of the recommendation , if you think it is wrong, if your heart is not in it, if you are motivated by selfish interests instead of the welfare of the organization, or if for a myriad of other possible reasons you do not support a course of action, that course  of action will very probably be unsuccessful, and therefore wrong. This, of course, is why I want you to participate in making the final decision. [His handwritten note here says “Participative Management” which is a strong HP management practice.]”


“…now lets [sic] get down to the problem,” Packard says. “We can begin with the very simple proposition that I expressed in a recent speech…to Defense Managers and Defense Contractors, that Defense procurement is a mess, and it will continue to be a mess until you who are here in this room do something about it. And, you really have not done anything about it yet.


“I have most of my professional career working at the job of management. The definition of Management is very simple – Management is getting things done through people. There is a very simple formula for achieving good management. First, you get good people on the job. Second, you create an organization structure and an environment so that they can get something done.”


Packard adds that “What we really mean is, if we want a good job done, we must put a good manager in charge, but we must also add – in charge of something that he is good at. The personnel policies of the Services do not achieve this objective, and it will be impossible for the Services to turn in a good performance unless they recognize this fact – and do something about it.”


“I am pleased that we have ‘People Problems’ first on the Agenda. I know we have all kinds of people problems. The Draft, Reduction of forces, Minority problems, Drug Usage, etc. Lets [sic] spend some time today on the important subject – ‘How can we do a better job with fewer people’ – thats [sic] the People Problem we have. Everywhere I look I still see too many people, not too few. We can have a lean – mean military force with fewer people and fewer dollars than we have today.


“The second corollary of good management is once you have selected a good man to do the job, let him do it. In the Department of Defense, I think you will all agree that we violate the second principle, if anything, more than the first.”


[At this point Packard slips into handwritten, outline format.]


“Most of people who monitor a project don’t know a darned thing about it.


“Have to make major changes in organization structure. I am sure in procurement, Military Command.


“Haven’t done very much yet in getting at heart of problem.


“Blue Ribbon Panel





“Plan to proceed –



Management systems ???

Design new products so they can be transported where they will be used.


Next step

Some business plans redundant – cancel directives – change.


People will follow.


Let’s spend this PM & tomorrow discussing some things that will do what needs to be done.”



Box 2, Folder 11 – Department of Defense


October 21, 1970, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Corporate Member Luncheon, Houston, TX


10/21/70, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech, with handwritten notations by him.

Packard is speaking to a large group of industry people anxious to hear

more about the current DOD major weapons systems acquisition policies.


Packard says that the U.S. is in a period of  “transition…from a wartime to a peacetime economy. [The President] has called  for a reordering of priorities in the way Federal funds are to be spent – a smaller share for defense and a larger share for non-defense domestic programs.


“We are moving also,” Packard says, “in new directions in our foreign policy.


“President Nixon proposes to build the foreign policy of the United States in the decade of the 1970s on the three pillars of Strength, Partnership, and Negotiation.”


As to the first pillar, Strength, he says “We must…ensure that the strength of our Armed Forces does not fall below an acceptable level,


Our country must have –

Forces to offset the growing Soviet military strength


Our country must have –

Forces to provide a pillar of strength supporting our foreign policy.


“The big question today is this: Can our country have these forces at a lower cost so as to release federal resources for the many non-defense needs of the country?”


“We in the Department of Defense have addressed this problem to the best of our ability in preparing the Fiscal Year 1971 budget which is now before the Congress.”


Packard says they have been able to keep important national security programs in the budget “only by making substantial reductions in a number of other areas. We have cut manpower and reduced the number of over-age ships being operated by the Navy.”


As to the second pillar of Nixon’s foreign policy, Partnership, Packard says “…we are forging a new kind of partnership. Partnership for the future in which our partners carry a larger share of the burden.”


“They must pick up their share of freedom’s burden. This principle applies in NATO, in the Mideast, in southeast, in Korea, and in Japan.”


Packard moves on the third major principle of Nixon’s foreign policy, Negotiation. “President Nixon has announced that we wish to move from an era of confrontation to an era of negotiation.” He cites efforts with the North Vietnamese in Paris, with the Soviets in Helsinki and Vienna, with the Chinese in Warsaw, as well as with those continuing to fight in the Middle East.


“Our world-wide record in seeding meaningful negotiations for peace is quite clear, and we intend to continue to pursue this objective as long as we have any realistic hopes of progress.”


Saying that the Nixon Administration has a big job to do, he asks

“Can the job be done with a lower defense budget? This will depend on whether our partners will accept a larger share of the responsibility.” And he adds that “It will depend on whether we can, in fact, get more defense for a dollar.


“The first steps Mel Laird and I took in the spring of 1969 were to find places where the defense budget could be reduced in ways which would not unacceptably damage our strength.


“Our Vietnamization program was an important step in that direction. It has been a major factor in allowing us to reduce our defense budget without jeopardizing our national objectives.


“I also have looked at a great many weapons development programs since I have been in this job. More recently I have looked at some of the Defense Department overhead activities and costs. And, I am convinced that this country has in past years not been getting a very good deal for the money the Defense Department has been spending. The taxpayers have good reason to expect better performance.”


“We spent a great deal of time in getting the Fiscal Year 1971 budget to the lowest possible level consistent with national security considerations. It is, as we have said many times, a bare bones budget.”


“Meanwhile, we recognize past Defense short-comings and waste. And, we are moving to correct them.”


Packard summarizes the problems:


“First, we have wasted billions of dollars on programs that were started and then abandoned. Billions of dollars have been wasted in the past because there has been no hard-nosed decision making about what to do and what not to do. Perhaps such a process is not possible, but a better job must be done.”


“We urgently need better decision making procedures on the question of what new weapons to develop and produce. The services have a hard time being objective, cost effective analyses are limited. What we need is more objectivity and more common sense, and these are commodities in limited supply; especially I find, in Washington.


“I circulated a memorandum on May 28 throughout the Department in an attempt to summarize my impressions up to that point on what is wrong with the defense procurement process, and what might be done to improve it. [See Packard speech August 20, 1970, New Policies in Defense Management]


“I have been very encouraged by the response to my views in that memorandum both from the Department and from Industry, which, of course, will be affected. The most important thing I tried to say was that the only way the Department can be managed better is by more decentralization.


“If decentralization is to work, the military services have to step up to their responsibility. This means that they must always put the welfare of the United States ahead of the desires of the Army, the Navy, the Marines, and the Air force. They try to do this. They try very hard. But sometimes it doesn’t quite work out right when it comes to deciding about what new weapons need to be developed and produced. This problem will not be resolved by having system analysis types making decisions – or for that matter, other Secretary of Defense offices. We just have to get the decision-making process and the implementation of programs down to a lower level.


“This is what I mean by decentralization, and this is the only way the Defense Department is going to discharge its responsibility to the taxpayers. Both the decision-making and the implementation have to be improved.”


Packard says the reaction to his May 28, 1970 memo has been favorable. “I believe we have a commitment at all levels in the Department [of Defense] – and I sense in industry as well – to support the policies outlined in my memorandum….That is the all important first step. It remains to be seen whether we can keep going forward.”


In conclusion, Packard says he would like to give a report on “where we stand on the process of reducing budgets.


“Two things have been happening to the Defense budget.


“The first has been the impact of inflation. This has been a particularly serious problem for Defense because so much of our budget goes to pay for people, and because personnel costs have risen much more rapidly than costs in other areas. So, in talking about the Defense budget, I would put it in terms not just of dollars but in dollars-of-purchasing-power.


“The second thing that has happened to the Defense budget, at least since this Administration has come into office, has been that the dollars allocated to Defense have gone down. As an example of these two effects, the FY 71 budget in purchasing power is $17 bullion dollars below the FY 68 budget. The FY 71 budget will result in a smaller Army, fewer wings for the Air Force, fewer ships for the Navy – a smaller military force in total. We will keep the important new weapons programs, but most will be at lower procurement levels or stretched out in time.”


“In purchasing power for our peacetime forces, the forces we will maintain when we are out of Vietnam, the FY 71 budget is $2 billion below the FY 1960 budget. I think this makes it very clear that the 1971 budget is in every sense a rock-bottom bare-bones budget.”


“In summary, we have been planning for leaner military forces for the future. These plans are already made and to a large degree already implemented. This country cannot afford to accept a lower level of defense than is provided by the FY 71 expenditure rate of 71.8 billion dollars – which is in the budget we have submitted to the Congress.”


6/29/70, Copy of letter to Packard from James J. Harford, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, asking Packard if he would be willing to speak to the annual meeting of the members, and, in particular, review the “New Guidelines for Major Weapons Systems Acquisition” Packard distributed.


6/29/70, Copy of letter from James J. Harford, AIAA, to Robert C. Seamans, Jr., Secretary of the Air Force, asking if he would be willing to write Packard endorsing the invitation to speak to the AIAA.


7/2/1970, Copy of letter to Packard from Robert C. Seamans, Jr., Secretary of the Air Force, endorsing Harford’s invitation.


7/8/70, Copy of letter from Packard to James J. Harford saying he accepts the invitation to speak to members of the AIAA.


8/3/70, Letter to Packard from James J. Harford, thanking him for accepting their invitation to speak to members.


10/2/70, Copy of letter to Packard from Albert C. hall, AIAA, providing several questions members have about the new guidelines.


10/20/70, Letter to Packard from Jerry W. Friedman, Deputy Assistant Secretary, giving details of their trip to Houston, where they will visit Oveta Culp Hobby and the editorial staff of the Houston Post, prior to the luncheon with the AIAA. Friedman provides some “talking points” for the meeting with the Post people.

10/29/70, Letter to Packard from Oveta Culp Hobby, thanking him for the visit with them.



Box 2, Folder 12 – Department of Defense


October 26, 1970, Keynote Address to The Instrument Society of America Conference, Philadelphia, PA


10/26/70, Typewritten text of Packard’s address with some handwritten notations.


Packard says he plans to talk “about where we have been and where we might be going in Department of Defense supported Research and Development.


“Ever since the end of World War II research and development supported by the Department of Defense has provided the major support for expansion of nearly all U. S. technology.”


Packard gives several examples of products, in common use in civilian life, that were originally developed through research for military use:


Electronics – radar, communications, computers

Aviation – turbojet turbofan engines, Boeing 707 from military C-135, light observation helicopters

Materials – aluminum, titanium, glass-reinforced plastics (composites)

Satellites – communications, navigation, mapping, weather observation

Medical – treatment of severely burned patients, helicopter evacuation, vaccine for meningitis


“The space program, together with expanding defense research, brought the total U.S. government research and development expenditures to a peak of about $13 billion in 1966 and 1967; defense was about half of that.


But now in 1970 the total U.S. government research and development is going down to a level of around $11 billion, with both space and defense declining rapidly and with defense still about half the total.


Packard says he is very concerned about this decline in total research and development: “It has grave implications for the future economic growth of the United States, because defense supported research over the past twenty-five years has been a decisive factor in both this country’s military capability and its economic growth.


“The men who set the pattern for military research and development  in the United States after World War II had great vision and wisdom….They realized that a major, well conceived program of defense research and development could help assure for the United States the military strength necessary for world leadership. More important, they recognized that defense research and development required the broadest possible bases of technology and technical education. And, they recognized that research and education are the job of this nation’s universities; that this was where the pay-off would be the best.


“I saw this military-supported combination of research and education blossom at Stanford, just as it blossomed at MIT, Cal Tech, and other universities throughout the country. It was Department of Defense support for research-and-engineering education at Stanford which enabled that university to develop into one of the great engineering schools of the world.”


“…we face the possibility of continually decreasing Defense Department expenditures for research and development because of radically – and I mean that in a strict definition – changed attitudes in the universities, in the scientific community, and among some elements of the general population. These attitudes are reflected, of course, in the Congress; and they seem to be bringing about a response which, in my opinion, could result in a significant and dangerous change from the quarter century of great technological progress of the past in the United States.”


Packard says he has “two questions of great concern …about this situation.


“First, what does it mean for the future military capability and therefore security of our country?


“Second, what does it mean for the future technological and educational base of the country and therefore for its potential for economic and social development?”


Looking first at the impact of a lower national research and development effort on our future defense capability, Packard points out that “…the world is no less hostile than it has been. In fact, the threat of conflict and violence is, if anything, increasing….One can hardly deny that forces of subversion and revolution inside the boundaries of many free world countries are expanding at an alarming rate, not only in traditionally troubled areas like the Middle East, but even right here at home in the United States, in Canada and in South America.


“At the present time we are from two to four years ahead of the Soviet Union in every important area of weapons technology….Our weapons are better now because we developed a substantial lead in technology during World War II. And we have maintained high enough levels of research and development to stay ahead ever since….If we ever lose the lead we now have in all major areas of military technology, we will inevitably face the prospect of having to accept a Sputnik not just in one or two unimportant areas now and then, but the prospect of a Sputnik in every important area of military weapons, in strategic nuclear forces, in naval forces, and in conventional ground forces. No responsible administration official, not any member of Congress, can afford, in my opinion, to take that gamble with the future security of our nation and the future safety of our people.”


Packard makes it clear he is not just “making a case for higher military budgets. “…we have already recognized the desire of President Nixon and of our people, to have fewer dollars spent on defense, and more federal dollars available for non-defense programs.”


“We have recognized the fact that nearly all our free-world friends and allies have rapidly growing economies, and can therefore be expected to carry a larger share of our mutual defense burden. We have recognized that through negotiation it may be possible to reduce the levels of armament, particularly in the strategic area. We also believe negotiation is the best way to resolve the problems of the Middle East and of Southeast Asia.”


“But, as we have lower levels of forces we cannot afford to have at the same time inferior weapons. We have superior weapons now, and the reason we do is that up until this time we have had a larger and better military research and development program than the Soviet Union.


Unfortunately, the House has cut back this year our request for research and development funds, and unless we can reverse this trend there will be only one possible result – the Soviet Union will come to have a larger and better military R&D effort, and in due course, will have superior weapons in every category.”


Packard says he realizes it is not necessary that R&D be supported by the Defense Department. “It can be supported by other federal funds. However, we must remind ourselves that we get a double benefit from defense supported research and development. A high level of R&D is the only way we can be assured of superior weapons in the future. And on the average, a defense dollar supporting R&D will contribute to this country’s economic and social progress just as effectively as a non-defense dollar supporting R&D.


“I am not particularly troubled that a few university faculties have chosen not to support defense-funded research. I do not think that has much effect on our ability to get the necessary R&D done. There are many other universities where defense support is welcome, and there are many scientists and engineers to do the work.


“In summary, research and development has been a key element of our nation’s strength, the source of a better life for our people and the decisive element in assuring their security. Our society and the world around us present ever increasing demands on our imagination and technical excellence. Mel Laird and I accept our responsibility to see that these demands are accurately described to the Congress and the American people.”


10/26/70, Press release from the Department of Defense containing the full text of Packard’s speech.

10/26/70, Silver Jubilee Souvenir Program from the Instrument Society of America.

10/26/70, Copy of list of  ISA Conference Sponsors.

11/11/70, Letter to Packard from Herbert S. Kinder, ISA Executive Director, expressing appreciation for Packard’s speech, and sending to Packard an Honorary Member pin.



Box 2, Folder 13 – Department of Defense


December 7, 1970, Defense Management Concepts, National War College, Washington D.C.


12/7/70, Typewritten text of Packard’s address.


Talking to future military managers Packard says he intends to “talk about “the management of the Defense Department”….adding that “I am not sure the Department can be managed….”


“…management is people, it is working with people…[it is] deciding what to do and doing it.”


“Sometimes we put too much emphasis on the doing-it part and not as much emphasis as we should on deciding what to do. But, …decisions and actions are very seldom completely separable. They need reiteration. You decide what you want to do, and then when you try to do it, you find there are some problems.


“Then, of course, in any program of management you need an evaluation procedure which simply is one to try to evaluate whether your decisions and your evaluation are effective.


“Everyone would like to think of management as a precise science, and there is a good deal of work in this direction….But I think there is an equally valid view that management is just about as much as art as a science, and because it has to do with people, emotions and sometimes, as I have said, just plain luck or plain fate have a lot to do with whether the decision comes out to be right, whether the job that you do is the right one.”


“Systems analysis and these other approaches have their place, but there are other elements in making good decisions, and I think there are two or three things that I keep in mind….”


“The first…is to have all the facts and understand them.


“Second is to listen to all opinions.”


“Another thing I have found: that it often helps to take a little time and think about the problem…be sure you have thought all aspects through.”


“As I look back over my experience in the business community, I can see many cases where poor management –meaning poor results from management action—was much more the result of poor decisions being made in the first place rather than poor implementation of those decisions. So I think I would say without any qualification that the most important step in any management is to decide what to do and be sure that you are doing the right thing, because even if you do the wrong thing well, it is not going to come out the right way.”


“…this is one of our big problems in managing the Defense Department—to determine what the level of our military forces shall be and what we shall provide in terms of the character of the forces, the types of weapons, and so forth. If the decision on the levels of forces is wrong or the kinds of weapons we select are wrong, then it is pretty hard to make the overall end result come out right.


“We have talked about decentralization, and we are working toward implementing more decentralization in our management program. Secretary Laird talks about “participative management.” I sometimes talk about “management by objective.” [A strong Hewlett-Packard practice.] I think we have to be careful in characterizing an approach to management in any simple terms. There are some things in management that can be decentralized; there are some things that cannot.


“I think we begin with the basic proposition that the decisions relating to the character and level of the forces are decisions which cannot be made by formula, by fiscal analysis; they cannot be made by decentralized decisions. But they have to be influenced realities—the fiscal realities, the political realities, both domestic and foreign. They are affected by uncertain decisions of the enemy, and they are also affected by uncertain decisions of our friends.”


“I would like to spend a few minutes telling you what the procedures are and how we are going about this job in the Government today, trying to determine the size and character of our military forces for the future, because this is, as I say, in many ways the most important management decision. This decision, as I have already indicated, cannot be decentralized. It cannot be made by DOD alone, let alone by JCS or the Services. This decision…has to be made on a centralized basis by the highest authority of Government. It has to be the President and the Cabinet who make the final determination on the size and the character of the forces….I do not mean what specific kinds of weapons and so forth, but the questions of how many divisions, how the forces are configured between air, naval and ground forces. These are decisions which affect the overall decisions of the country.”


“The President has requested the National Security Council to address certain key decisions which need to be made and to advise him. The Security Council in turn has tasked the various agencies in the Government to study the question and to make recommendations which eventually go to the Security Council and then to the President. We call this the NSSM approach because it starts out with a National Security Study Memorandum which outlines the problem that is to be studied/ and it ends up with a NSDM, a decision by the Security Council.


“A great may subjects relating to the future of our military forces have been addressed through this process.. One of the first exercises was what we refer to as NSSM 3. It was a study directed at the alternatives that were available to the President in terms of various levels of military forces that might be needed for the future, related to the domestic priorities of the country.”


“During the year studies were directed to provide an understanding and guidance for the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks; NATO, the Mid East, and a great many of these subjects which relate to the question as to what the level and character of our military forces for the future should be were addressed. These questions are not questions which can be analyzed at one time, a decision made, and that decision then hold forever or for even a reasonable period of time. These decisions have to be continually recycled and reevaluated because conditions change.


“In order for an evaluation on a continuing basis, another mechanism, again under the Security council, was set up, called the Defense Program Review Committee. This was simply a small group set up to address and evaluate some of these questions on a continuing basis. Secretary Laird in particular was anxious to have the force level and military budget questions examined continually in relation to the domestic priorities of the country, the domestic priorities of the Federal government, and these in terms of the resources which might be available.”


“In the early stages of these studies, beginning in early 1969, it is my judgment that we tended to rely rather heavily upon the systems analysis approach; in fact, some of the early recommendations were criticized  (and I think properly so) by some of our military people as being too much systems analysis oriented.


“I think we have moved in these studies toward a better balance. We are still using systems analysis procedures to address these questions, but we are getting the judgments and evaluations of the Joint Chiefs more effectively involved and of the Services themselves.”


“We are trying to get the political, both domestic and foreign, considerations worked into the equation a little better. I cite this to simply emphasize that these decisions which relate to the future level and character of our military forces are not decisions that can or should be decentralized. They must be made at the highest level of the Government, but if they are going to be made as well as possible, they must include interests from all people involved.”


“Let me move on now and talk a little about some of the things we are doing to implement the decisions, the specific plans and force levels and convert them into budgets and specific long-range plans.”


“The system has been established. It starts with strategy guidance which is prepared by the Joint Chiefs….I think sometimes in the past the JCS strategy has provided a little different guideline for decision-making; and that being the case, it makes it difficult to base specific decisions on the strategy guidance.


“The general feeling has been that it is desirable for the JCS to provide strategy guidance and force levels without fiscal constraints. There may be some argument foe this to be done, but I have some concern as to whether this is really an effective way to go about it, and we have been moving gradually to try to get the fiscal constraints considered earlier in the game and, I think also, to get some of the political and other constraints considered a little more carefully.


“It would be my hope that we can work together on this program and eventually have the strategy guidance that the JCS prepare be consistent with the overall strategy guidance of the Administration and the OSD, of course.


“The specific forces are then tailored to the strategy guidance. This has been done by a rather complex and rigid system  of procedures in which very rigid guidance has been given to the Services. The complaint has been that the Services have not had a chance to provide the initiative in addressing these problems but, rather, have been in the position of only being able to respond to programs that were generated by OSD and generally Systems Analysis.


“We have been trying to change the emphasis here and move in a direction so that the Services can in fact provide the basic initiative in tailoring the forces to meet the strategic guidance….I think we have made some progress in this direction.


“…I think there are two things that the Office of the Secretary needs to do in this matter.


“One of them is that it is very important to make sure that the forces that are proposed by the Services are in balance and consistent with the requirements of the overall strategy. This, of course, can be done to a large extent by the JCS, but there still seem to be certain questions that they have difficulty in addressing in a completely unbiased manner. I think it is going to continue to be necessary for the OSD to make some judgments about balances between forces.”


“So as I see it, what our role should be is to make sure the strategy guidance is right, because if we do not know what that is, if that is not defined on an acceptable basis, then all of the planning e do from that point on is going to be somewhat faulty.


“Once the strategy is accepted, the Services should have a very large role in recommending forces, both in terms of levels and specific forces, but the OSD will, as I have said, I think, still have to have a place in determining the balance, the question of how may ground force divisions, how many carriers, how many wings. To some extent this is difficult to resolve and has to be resolved on an overall basis.


“There are a great many details in preparing the budget, and it is very necessary that we make sure there is consistency in another way. For example, if the strategy that is decided upon is to provide forces, say, for a 90-day conventional war in NATO, it is important that all three Services have the support necessary, the supplies, the logistics for that agreed period. It is unacceptable if the Army has a 90-day supply and the Air force has only a 10-day supply.”


Packard says he would like to spend a little time “talking about the things we are doing on the weapons system procurement business because this is a whole range of decisions made, in a sense, down at the lower level but nevertheless very important because tremendous amounts of money are spent here. Here both our decision-making and the efficiency with which we implement the programs are important.”


“What we are trying to do is to recognize that the decisions relating to the requirements, the characteristics we would like to have in the weapon the technological problems involved in developing and achieving those requirements are not separable subjects but they are interrelated.


“One of the troubles we have had is that the Service people (and quite understandably) have proposed they would like a particular weapon that would have certain characteristics, and they want the best characteristics that can be achieved. The scientists and the contractors have been inclined to promise more than they can actually perform; so many of the systems have gotten off to a bad start in that the are trying to do something that is not quite feasible. This has driven the thing to some very bad situations in the management.”


“We are trying to encourage our Service people to address more attention to the tradeoffs early in the game, to spend more time on the advanced development aspects before a system goes into full-scale development, to make sure that technical uncertainties have been eliminated to a reasonable extent (you can never eliminate them completely until you are all done with the job) and to make sure that the tradeoffs between the desired performance and the performance that can be achieved on a reasonable basis are balanced out.


“We are emphasizing what was the situation before, but I think we are emphasizing it perhaps in a little more effective way, that here we can decentralize the implementation responsibility to the Services, that the role of the OSD is not to make the detailed decisions for the Services on these weapons systems programs but to make the decisions as to whether the program should go ahead, to provide a capability for evaluation to determine whether the program is far enough along to go ahead, whether it is consistent with resource allocations and so forth. But the Services themselves should be able to and should have the responsibility to manage their own programs.”


“I think one of the troubles has been that in the past a good many of the detailed decisions have been made or at least second-guessed by OSD offices. This tended to discourage the Services.”


“…I think it has been helpful to try to get over to our OSD offices that they do have specific functions to do, but, as someone put it, everybody does not have to be in on everything.”


“We are moving, then, toward trying to provide more flexibility in the development program so that tradeoffs on these matters can be considered as development progresses. This brings us to the conclusion that the total package procurement process is not a very satisfactory process for any development that involves a reasonable degree of uncertainty. There may be places where this can be used, but we are moving toward the general guidance that a cost plus incentive type of contract is desirable for the major development programs, and it is desirable because this reflects the fact that a better job can be done if these matters can be traded off during the entire development program and if we do not come down on a hard schedule, a hard level of requirements. In other words, if you can precisely define the product that you are buying and if you are absolutely sure that your contractor can make the product that is exactly as you have defined it, then a total package procurement might be realistic. This is hardly ever the case in a major weapon system program.


“There are questions about how effective it is to use a cost plus incentive contract—doesn’t this just allow the program to run wide open? The answer is that there is a corollary requirement, and that is that these programs have to be managed better by the Services. The concept under the total package procurement was that once the specifications were set down and given, you had a competition; great American industry could bring its resources together and do the job and the Services really did not have to pay much attention to it except to see what came out at the end; if it met the requirements, to pay the bill, and that was all there was to it.


“I think we have learned by some rather sad experience that this is not possible, that these programs need to be managed right, need to be managed more closely; and if they are to be managed more closely, we have to have the best possible project managers. Those project managers must have some decision-making authority, and we have to minimize the number of people and the amount of effort that is directed at looking over their shoulder and second-guessing them.”


Packard says they have made some progress in changing the procurement system, “But most of the Services have not yet faced up to the problem that they may have to change the structure of their organization to some extent because we have still within the Services a tendency for too many people to have to be in on decisions too far down the line.


“What we would like to achieve here would be a system wherein the project manager is a good man, with experience, selected for the job, given the assignment long enough to get the job done effectively, not be pulled out for some other assignment when he is halfway through it, at an inappropriate point—and with some authority to make decisions, tradeoffs, and so forth, and with the review authority, both within the Service and at the OSD level in terms of whether he has or has not achieved certain accomplishments on the program.


‘We have moved in this direction. We have set up milestones, and at the OSD level we are trying to ask the Services for an evaluation only at the appropriate point.


“Many times the program gets into advanced development at sort of a low level and builds up, and I think this is all right. I think some initiative at that end of the line is a good thing. But, as the program builds up, the decision has to be made as to whether to go ahead with the formal development program—in other words, undertake to develop and put the equipment in the forces. That is the point at which we intend to keep the decision-making at the OSD level because we want to be sure that the decision is compatible with the overall planning.


“It may be possible as we move down the line to delegate this decision-making point to the Services at a lower level, but for the time being, at least, we want to monitor it.


“There are certain milestones in the development program which relate to whether the technical objectives have been achieved, whether the fiscal guidelines (the cost guidelines) have been exceeded, and those milestones are selected, hopefully, at meaningful points (not too many of them) so that the project manager can be left alone to do his job up to that point. But these evaluation points are places where the OSD, in terms of whether additional funds should be released or for other reasons, may want to get in on the decision.


”When the development is complete and the decision to go ahead with production is in order-because in the case we have set the development up on a cost incentive basis, we want to try not to establish a firm schedule for production, at least until we are down to development to a certain degree—the point at which the decision is to go ahead with full-scale production is an important one. We are anxious to make sure that the development is far enough along to eliminate the uncertainties. This is a  point of decision where the OSD will still be involved. I think these points of decision where the OSD should still be involved should relate to some extent to the points at which some of the major staff groups in the Services should be involved.


“One of the troubles now is that when we call for a review at the OSD level, then the project manager is often asked to review at every level from where he is right up to the OSD because everybody wants to know what he is going to tell the OSD. This seems to me to be a kind of wasteful process. There should be some way we can combine these things. We are working on some things in this direction.


“One of the problems that is still difficult to resolve is the question of which Service should have the responsibility for a particular program. We have been addressing some of these on the basis of trying to get the responsible Services to sit down together and see if they themselves can figure out a logical way to do the job. I prefer this approach because if they agree among themselves, this is the right way to go; it is much more likely to work than if somebody at the OSD level directs them to do it one way or the other.”


“I have been actually very encouraged by the response we have had in trying to move ahead in some of these ideas. I have had, as I expressed at the beginning, some concern as to how far we are going, but we are moving ahead with the basic objective, first, of trying to find a better way to get the overall major decisions made to work with the other people in the Administration and with all the people in the department, because the basic decision on force level and character of forces is the prime decision.


“We are moving in the direction of trying to bring the Services into a more responsible role in all of the areas involved, and we are trying to cut back on the amount of red tape and the amount of control that has been heretofore centralized at the OSD level, some of which have not been looked at for a long time, and some of which, as I have said, address themselves more to the importance of reporting than to the importance of getting the job done that is supposed to be done.”


“We are going to try to continue to move in that direction and find some ways in which we can eliminate unnecessary work and give people more responsibility. In order to do this we will, of course, have to rely very heavily on everyone in the department and everyone in the Service moving ahead and putting their shoulder to the wheel.


“Obviously, progress can be made to the extent the people in the organization agree that we are going in the right direction and accept what we are trying to do. It is for that reason that I put a good deal of emphasis on what Secretary Laird calls “participative management.” This is really based on the basic proposition that if people are involved in making decisions which influence them they are much more likely to be effective in implementing those decisions. This has a good deal to do with decentralization, but I do not want anybody to misunderstand this matter of decentralization. It does not mean we an decentralize everything in the department. There are a great many things which cannot be decentralized to the department from mother areas of the Government. There are some decisions that just have to be centralized, but they should have the participation of those who are affected, and we are trying to do this to the extent we can.”


12/7/70, Carbon copy of text of Packard’s address, with handwritten notations by Packard. Marked as an official document of the National War College

12/7/70, Reproduced copy of above.

12/14/70, Letter to Packard from R. L. Dalton, National War College, sending stenotypist transcription of his speech for markup.

1971 – Packard Speeches

Box 2, Folder 14 – Department of Defense


February 18, 1971, Symposium at Fort Rucker, AL. It is not clear who the audience was, probably officers in the Armed Forces.


2/18/71, Typewritten text of Packard’s talk. Written in outline format.

Saying that he has now been on the job for two years and two months, Packard says that, “In addition to dealing with day-to-day problems, we have had some opportunity to look down the road – Force Planning, based on Nixon Doctrine – President’s statement on future U. S. foreign policy.


Force planning based on realities:


  1. Build-up of  Soviet strategic forces – conventional forces more important.
  2. NATO-Warsaw pact is not only potential area of conflict:




Probably not South America and Africa south of Sahara

  1. Fiscal realities – human programs; no tax increase
  2. Domestic political realities – zero draft; manpower limit


Conventional forces of US and allies must be designed to provide credible deterrent. Guidelines for future forces:


  1. Maintain credible nuclear deterrent non-nuclear force


  1. with friends and allies
  2. with lower manpower levels
  3. at about present budget level

(1)     continuing rise in manpower cost:

53% of budget

2.5M cost 13B – 1964

2.5M cost 29B – 1972

We must do a better job in applying technology to conventional tactical warfare. We must find more effective, more efficient, ways to develop and procure military hardware.


Both requirements dictate better decisions on what to develop – the issue you have been discussing here.

Some lessons have been learned in Vietnam and some others – very important lessons – were learned during the middle east crisis last year.


Unfortunately, the Defense Department system has a very poor ability to learn anything – even the obvious.


One has to only look at two things – photographs of areas bombed in Vietnam and expenditures made over the last few years for conventional ordnance expended there – to conclude our so-called air power – particularly interdiction – has been very ineffective – disgracefully so. I am pleased to report that very substantial improvements have been achieved during the past two years – gunships, guided weapons, and improved tactics.


We have begun to see what can be done – and the key point is that substantial improvements in effectiveness can be achieved with substantially lower costs both in dollars and in lives.


Sensors – better night vision – better range finders – better ordinance – all have given our ground forces greatly increased capability over what they had five years ago.


I know you have been discussing some of these things at this conference.


I am greatly troubled that what gains as have been made – in spite of system, DCPG – sensor, etc.


Not all good – speed-cost, gunships – small group, system – two years, back to small group – 6 months.


We are entering an exciting era in the things you are discussing here.


New imagination – what to do – get out into real world – fort Hood – operational jesting – development needs to be coupled better with requirements.


Service staff – wrong way – get the development people out with operational people -–tell the paper shufflers to go home.


We are going to try some new approaches, DCPG – Defense Special Projects Group, DSPG.


We are setting up new group for tactical communications, Tri Tac. Battle short around system.


More reliance on hardware, less paper.


New aircraft designs – new weapon system concept, no total package procurement.


Good old fashioned approach. Design it before you produce it.


Cost incentive contracts for development – fixed price – hold to it.


Better management – Services.


The future


Smaller forces – if credible deterrence must be more effective. Must get more for defense dollar – need your help – it won’t be done in the Pentagon. Want to be done by Service staff people – must be done at working level.



Box 2, Folder 15 – Department of Defense


March 3, 1971, Council on Foreign Relations


3/3/71, Typewritten text , in outline format, of Packard’s talk.


1. Immediately after taking office in 1969 extensive reviews were undertaken by the Nixon Administration to reorient United States foreign Policy for the 1970s.


A   A changed  — and changing – world environment.

  1. Frustration with role in Vietnam.
  2. Need for more federal resources to help solve domestic problems.


(1)     Changes in free world

(2)     Changes in communist world


  1.  Studies under Security Council machinery and real issues – Vietnam, Mid-East, Korea, SALT


2.  President Nixon’s statement in Guam in the summer of 1969 and his November  1969 address to the nation laid out elements of new partnership.


  1. U.S. will keep all treaty commitments.
  2. U.S. shall provide shield if a nuclear power threatens the freedom of a nation allied with us or one whose survival we consider vital to our security
  3. In cases involving other type of aggression we will provide military and economic assistance but look to nation threatened to provide manpower for its defense.


3. The President’s statement on U.S. foreign policy for the 1970s released last week reflects these realities.


  1. A major American role in the world remains indispensable.


Middle East – NATO – Asia

  1. Other nation can and should assume a greater responsibility for their sake as well as ours.


  1. The change in the strategic relationship calls for new approaches – new doctrines. Parity – more reliance on non-nuclear.


  1. Changes in the communist world present different challenges and new opportunities. Sino/Soviet conflict – real. Keep open communication Soviets – open China.


  1.  Defense planning has been undertaken since 1969 to be consistent with this evolving policy for the 1970s


  1. To implement the Nixon Doctrine.
  2. To accommodate a reordering of  federal resource priorities – larger share for human needs – smaller share for defense needs.


  1.  Some problems in implementing a defense program to meet these objectives.


A. Growing Soviet military strength – strategic nuclear – naval forces in particular.


  1.  Increased cost of military manpower, e. g. 1972 = 185% of 1964 for military pay vs. 125% for goods and services. 2.5 million military force cost $13B in 1964 but $29B in 1971.  All volunteer force.


  1. All allies are stronger but traditional reliance on U.S. difficult to change.


  1. During these past two years we have taken some important steps to implement the Nixon Doctrine.


  1. Vietnam – 549,000 U.S. troops in 1968 – 330,000 now and 284,000 May 1, 1971. ARVN forces now carry major combat role there.
  2. South Korea – 20,000 fewer U.S. troops – more equipment aid for ROK.
  3. Reductions – 12,000 in Japan, 5,000 in Okinawa, 16,000 in Thailand, 9,000 in Philippines – worldwide government personnel reductions – 86,000 people.
  4. The Nixon Doctrine calls for Fewer people but more aid — MAP supplemental of $1B approved closing days of 1970.
  5. Defense budget has gone from 9.5% of GNP in 1968 to a projected 7.8% for FY 72 – from 42.5% of federal budget to 31.6%
  6. People adjustments have been substantial




Defense Related



Defense budget lower force levels

Higher R & D

More readiness

A budget realistic deterrence


  1. The most important test of the Nixon Doctrine is in southeast Asia.


  1. Early in 1969 it appeared that negotiations were not a likely route to an acceptable solution in VN
  2. Vietnamization emphasized. Military progress excellent – million man VDN forces – capability demonstrated in Cambodia. Some problems which will take a little more time – will be solved. We are close to time when no U.S. forces needed – won’t withdraw until POW issue solved.


  1. Southeast Asia,  Vietnamization was a new policy begun in spring of 1969.


  1. Planning – how to get U.S. forces out in six months
  2. SVN handle situation if NVN left country


Idea was feasible – it should support negotiations – alternate if negotiations failed.

Leadership and training

Logistic capability – supply – repair



Tactical Air – B-52d, Laos interdiction, air defense

Naval – Riverine –coastal

Much progress made – Fall ’69 visit

New capability – fight enemy

Supplies and sanctuaries – Cambodia & Laos

Supplies through Sianoukville

Cambodian operation

Over 20,000 tons – PRC – successful

Cut supplies

Lowered casualties

Cambodian response

Nationalistic Spirit

30,000 to 200,000

Fair capability – improving

Changed enemy tactics

Small unit operations

Terror remains high

Harassment in Cambodia

Isolate Phnom Penh

ARVN forces very effective

Beginning of dry season

Major supply effort through Laos

If successful, support activities in SVN and Cambodia

Possible to move on ground to disrupt supply movement in Laos

Increased ARVN capability

Low activity in south

Expected tough fight – North bad to respond –(contrast    Cambodia)

Already some success – 900,000 # rice

Will require two or three weeks more to get clear picture.

Vietnamization already clearly successful – military

Economic – time business friends go look


Withdrawal of U.S. troops continue

Prisoner of Wear problem

Negotiations bring end

Guerrilla fighting continue

Fighting just fade down


  1. What does the future hold for the Nixon Doctrine






Partnership – friends and allies not only carry larger share of burden – but have larger voice in determining the best approach to their own problems.


Strength – the realities of the world dictate that U.S. leadership must be backed by strength – not only U.S. strength but strength of our friends and allies.


  1. Vietnam must be strong enough to handle its own problems
  2. The strength of Jordan in handling Fedayeen problem a good example


We must negotiate from a position of strength – SALT – Mideast


A look ahead shows us on a difficult course. We are embarked on that course and are making progress. If we can move ahead with a sense of unity and a sense of purpose, I am convinced we can indeed reach the President’s goal – a generation in peace.



Box 2, Folder 16 – Department of Defense


March 24, 1971, The Department of Defense in a Generation of Peace, IEEE Convention and Exposition, New York City

3/24/71, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech, includes handwritten notations by him.


Packard apologizes for a “bit of nostalgia” and notes that, up until he joined the Department of Defense in 1969 he had attended the IEE annual Convention every year since 1940. He says these three decades have been “the center of action” – “exiting and expansive times for the electronic profession.” He adds that “They were exciting and expansive times for me, too.”


Packard says that prior to World War II, electronics “was radio and communications.”  In these early days the industry was not “highly dependent upon national defense funds to support its research, or to keep its factories going.” But, “As weapons production built up in 1941 in response to the war in Europe and the Pacific, defense requirements became a substantial factor in the electronics industry.”


“There was no better place to observe – as well as to be a part of – this great drama of electronics as it unfolded over these past three decades than to have been here, year after year, at this Annual IEEE Convention and Show.”


“During those exciting years there was no nonsense about basic research having to be directly related – in an immediately obvious, provable way – to known military requirements. If Defense experts thought it was good research, it was supported.


“Independent research and development was viewed as an essential element of progress, and it was recognized that new knowledge would flow from such research to the benefit of society at large and that it then would support the nation’s defense effort indirectly, if not directly.”


“A few years ago” Packard says, “a changing attitude began to develop in this country toward Defense-supported research. In fact, the attitude began to change in respect to all research.


“Underlying this change  was the realization that the products of science are not always purely beneficial to mankind; that more wisdom and more judgment should enter into the decisions about how science should be applied to the needs and problems of the world. Disillusionment and concern about the Vietnam war was certainly a factor in these changing attitudes.


“Many people at all levels of government and science have come to believe during these past few years that it is time to think through again some of our past axioms. One sees evidence that this is happening by looking at this convention’s program. I see more broad philosophical issues being addressed in the papers presented here this week than was the case ten years ago.”


“The Defense Department has had a very important and, I believe, constructive role in this rethinking, rededication, and revitalization.”


“President Nixon does not intend for the United States to back away from its role of world leadership. We do intend to exercise our power for peace. I find myself troubled, however, because our vision is too often blurred by domestic bickering and by partisan politics in matters related to world affairs. Apparently, this is nothing new, however. DeTocqueville stated the case very well in a special reference to the United States 140 years ago.” Packard reads this 1830 quote from DeTocqueville:


‘Foreign politics demand scarcely any of those qualities which are peculiar to a democracy. They require, on the contrary, the perfect use of almost all those in which it is deficient. A democracy can only with great difficulties regulate the details of an important undertaking, persevere in a fixed design and work out its execution in spite of serious obstacles. It cannot combine its measures with secrecy or avert their consequences  with patience.’


Packard refers to President Nixon’s statement regarding a new course for United States leadership: ’No goal could be greater than to make the next generation the first in this century in which America is at peace with every nation in the world.’


Packard says that, since he and Secretary Laird came to the Depart of Defense in the spring of 1969, “…we have been working hard on a reassessment of our military commitments and our military forces against the background of a changed –and still changing –world. We want to be sure our future forces will provide the Realistic Deterrence necessary for a generation of peace.”


Packard talks about trying to balance the goal of providing this deterrence, against such problems as the continuing frustration over the unresolved situation in Southeast Asia, large Federal deficits, and increasing defense spending. “I sincerely believe”, he says, [ that in planning our nation’s military forces we have recognized] “the realistic need and desire of our nation’s people to have a larger share of federal resources applied to domestic problems and programs.”


“We are winding down U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia.”


“In 1968 the Defense budget was 9 ½  percent of the gross national product. For the fiscal year beginning next July it will be down to 6.8 percent of the gross national product.”


“The additional $23 billion which would be required in 1972 to support forces at the level they were in 1968 has been applied to domestic programs”


“…it is not an easy task to be sure we can have adequate capability at lower force levels.


“During the past few years, the soviets have been building up their nuclear forces. They now have forces equal to ours, and their build-up is continuing. They are building a navy capable of world-wide operations, and they continue to improve their tactical nuclear and conventional ground force capability on the Warsaw Pact front. The Communist Chinese are continuing to develop their nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver  them. They, too, are building submarines and naval forces, and they maintain large armies with modern weapons. There is no evident reduction of subversion, terrorism, or violence anywhere in the world.


“In the face of these challenges, our Defense task is to develop and to support United States military capability adequate to deter the use of these forces by those countries that have them. We recognize we must do this with lower manpower levels and reasonable budgets in the future.”


“We have some favorable factors on our side, Our friends and allies around the world have increasing military capability backed by increasing economic strength. This is true in Korea and Indo-China, in Taiwan and Japan. Our NATO allies recognize they should do more, and they have the wherewithall to do more.


“There are hopeful developments in the Middle East – hope for a successful negotiation supported and sustained subsequently by adequate deterrent strength.”


“The essential requirement toward achieving Realistic Deterrence with lower forces is that we focus on capabilities rather than on mere units of forces.


“It is very clear that there is much support and historical precedent for great attention on numbers of ships, airplanes, and divisions. It is equally clear that we easily can be misled into the mistaken assumption that these numbers alone contain useful information about capabilities.”


“Better application of technology, new and old, can enhance the capability of our military forces – land, sea, and air. That is why we are requesting in the Fiscal 72 Budget increased finds for Research and Development. I am referring here to a real increase, not just enough to overcome inflation, but enough to really increase our Research and Development over the level of effort of the past two years.


“If approved, this real increase in the R&D budget will impact directly on the members of this society and this industry. The increase reflects both the end of transition budgets and a conscious decision to return to this nation’s greatest source of relative strength – technology – to provide forces for Realistic Deterrence at realistic budget levels.


“It is my honest opinion that if we are to maintain forces that ensure Realistic Deterrence with lower budget levels and fewer men and women in uniform then the most important contribution we can make toward better capability is to increase the effectiveness of our DEFENSE research and Development program. That’s the message I bring you tonight. And, I believe congress will support this emphasis on Research and Development because I believe they will agree that this country simply cannot afford to risk the future security of our people to both lower forces and inferior weapons.”


“I do not know how many of you here tonight are interested in doing Research and Development for the defense Department in the future. I hope you have not all been misled into believing that the only fields worthy of scientific and intellectual effort are health and environment. I hope some of you are still willing to work on national security problems. I want to tell you – we need you; your nation needs you. And we need your best efforts and new initiative now.


“Let’s all understand that if Congress approves my request for increased research and development funding in FY 1972, it has a binding commitment from me – a personal pledge – that research and development programs will be better managed in the future than they have been in the past.


“If you tell us you can develop a new system for national defense, we will expect you to build it, test it, and prove to us that it works; and we will expect that before we buy production quantities.


“Gentlemen, there is going to be no more brochure engineering. We want hardware that works – not paper that claims it’s going to work. And working hardware is what I’m going to get – hardware that increases the capabilities of our smaller forces.


“There are, in fact, some very important and exciting jobs to be done. We are going to encourage those new initiatives. We are going to place more dependence on technology in the future. We are going to defend this greatest, freest nation in history. And with your help, she will remain free.”


3/24/71, Copy of  Press Release issued by the Department of Defense containing full text of Packard’s speech.

3/24/71, Copy of IEEE 71 Annual Banquet program

11/2/70,  Copy of letter to Packard from Emmet G. Cameron, IEEE, inviting him to speak at the International Exposition and Conference banquet in New York on March 24, 1971.

11/7/70, Copy of memorandum to Packard from Daniel Z Henkin, Assistant Secretary of Defense, recommending that Packard to accept IEEE’s invitation.

11/12/70, Copy of letter to Emmet G. Cameron, IEEE, from Julian R. Levine, Assistant Secretary of Defense, accepting, on behalf of Packard,  the invitation to speak on 3/24/71.

2/9/71, Letter to Packard from Emmet G. Cameron of IEEE giving details on the dinner arrangements.

2/19/71, Copy of letter to Emmet G. Cameron, IEEE,  from Packard confirming his attendance at the 3/24/71 event.

2/23/71, Copy of letter to J. H. Schumacher from Margaret Paull, Packard’s secretary, discussing hotel arrangements.

Undated, Schedule of day of 3/24/71

3/29/71, Letter to Packard from Thomas H. O’Brien saying he enjoyed Packard’s speech.

Undated,  Two Flyers from a local anti-military group attacking Packard personally.



Box 2, Folder 17 – Department of Defense


April 8, 1971, WEMA, San Francisco, CA


4/8/71, Copy of transcription of speech


Referring rather jokingly to recent dissent activities [and the fact that this speech was moved from Palo Alto to San Francisco by the DOD for security reasons] Packard says “I can tell you in all sincerity that the Department of Defense has made considerable progress during these past two and a half years under the leadership of my good friend Mel Laird.” And he says he wants to talk about three areas in particular where he believes some contributions have been made.


”The first is in the realm of international policy.


“Second, is in the reorder of the priorities of the Federal government.


“And the third is the changes that we have made in the management of the Department of Defense.


Saying that President Nixon “has set our country on a new course in foreign policy for the decade of the 1970s,” Packard refers to the President’s statement by saying  “no goal could be greater than to make the next generation the first in this country in which America has been at peace with every nation of the world. This has been a major transition in our national policy and in our foreign policy, and the Defense Department has had a substantial role in the development of this new foreign policy.”


Packard says “It is our objective to move this country from an era of confrontation into an era of negotiation.” And he cites examples where negotiation has been taking place: with the Soviet Union on arms limitation, with the North Vietnamese trying to solve the problems in Southeast Asia, in the Middle East, and with China.


“In addition to negotiations, there are two other pillars to this Nixon Doctrine, the pillar of partnership and the pillar of strength.


“And as the President has explained, the central thesis of the Nixon Doctrine, is that the United States will participate in the necessary defense and support of our allies and friends; that America cannot and will not conceive all of the plans, design all of the programs, execute all of the decisions, pay all of the bills, provide all of the manpower, and undertake all of the defense for the Free nations of the world.”


Packard says there are three elements to the Nixon Doctrine:


“The United States will keep all of its treaty commitments.


“Second, we will provide a shield if a nuclear power threatens the freedom of a nation allied with us or a nation whose survival we consider vital to our own security.


“And third, in the case of non-nuclear aggression, we will furnish such military and economic assistance as is required and as is appropriate.


“Vietnamization is the first major application of the Nixon Doctrine, and I am particularly proud of our Vietnamization program, because it was Secretary Laird and I, I believe, who first recognized in the spring of 1969, that it was very unlikely that there could be any profitable, substantial, effective results from the Paris negotiations, short of turning all of Southeast Asia over to the Communists, and, that indeed, a different solution had to be found to that problem.”


Packard gives some statistics showing the reduction of forces in Vietnam: “In 1969, the United States had an authorized military strength of 549,000 in South Vietnam….In May of this year, less than a month from now, the authorized strength will be down to 284,000. By Christmas of this year, we will be down to 180,000…”


Packard adds the thought that “This war will end not when the United States forces go home. This war will end when the North Vietnamese forces go home.”


“But as we emphasize partnership and negotiation in implementing this Nixon Doctrine, we must maintain a sufficient military strength of our own United States military forces. We cannot overlook the fact that the Soviets, the Chinese, in fact all aggressor nations and potential aggressor nations, respect strength.”


Packard tells of lessons learned in dealing with the “Jordan crises last fall.”


“First, it is important for the United States to have armed forces ready for unexpected developments.


“Second, the Soviet Navy is a growing threat to our ability to support our friends in the Mideast.


“Third, a very serious development was avoided primarily because Jordan had the military strength to solve her own problems. This stemmed in a large part from past American help.


“And, fourth, the existence of allies and friends in an area is crucial if the United States is to cope with a crisis in that area.”


“Now in reorienting our defense programs to support the Nixon Doctrine these past two and a quarter years, we have also been able to bring about a very substantial reordering of the Federal priorities. As you in this audience sell know, we are spending less on defense. No one wants to give us much credit for helping provide for more—for non-defense domestic programs, but that is in fact what we have done.


“In 1969, the Defense budget was nine and one-half per cent of the Gross National Product. In 1972, it will be 6.8 per cent of the Gross National product. This is the lowest it has been since 1951 when it was 6.7 per cent of the Gross national Product.


“The reallocation of resources within the Federal budget has brought defense down to 32 per cent for fiscal 1972. It averaged 51.4 per cent in the decade of the 50s, 32.4 per cent in the decade of the 60s, and I am confident that we can provide this country the military strength to support the Nixon Doctrine with an average of less than 30 per cent of the Federal budget in the decade of the 70s.


“The non-defense programs of this country received less than 50 per cent of the Federal budget in the decade of the 50s, less than 50 per cent of the Federal budget in the decade of the 60s, but will average more than 70 per cent of the Federal budget in the decade of the 70s.


“Now let me outline for you some of the problems we have in planning our military forces with adequate strength to support the Nixon doctrine for the decade of the 70s. To hopefully achieve this generation of peace we must have the strength to deter war; we must have strength adequate for a realistic deterrent. This must include our strategic nuclear forces as well as our conventional forces.


“Let me cite some of the problems we have, and some of the figures:


“In 1968, Defense outlays were $78 billion. In that year there were 4.8 million men and women on the payrolls of the Defense Department, military and civilian. In 1972 Defense Department outlays will be $76 billion. This $76 billion, however, will support only three and one-half million military men. To put it another way, it would cost us in 1972, $23 billion more than we plan to spend if we were to support the forces we had in 1968.”


“A part of our problem has been inflation, as I am sure you know. But our problem is primarily one of military pay. We have been asking the young men of our country to not only devote two years of their life to military services when they are drafted but we have been asking them also to make a very substantial financial contribution. It depends a little bit on the service and on the number of dependents and so forth, but as a ball park figure, pay and allowances for people who go into the service, first year, second year, amounts to about $2500 a year. We train young people to go into the New York police force and get $9,000 a year; they can go into other areas and get comparable amounts. So, in effect, we have been asking our young people in this country to contribute two years of their life in uniform and probably at least $10,000 in terms of their potential enemy [should be earnings].”


Packard says they are trying to correct this situation. He shows how military pay is rising faster than inflation.


“We have already said we will have in 1972, about three and a half-million people altogether on DOD payrolls, military and civilian. In 1964, there were about the same…actually 3.6 million. Pay and related costs for these 3.6 million people in 1964 were $22 billion. Pay and related costs for three and a half million people in 1972 will be $39 billion, almost twice as much.“


“So it is not an easy task to be sure that we can have the necessary military strength to support the Nixon doctrine with the budget levels I have suggested. It is not clear that we are going to be able to have the adequate capability at lower force levels, although, as I will now try and outline for you, I am convinced myself that this can be done.”


“But,” Packard says, “we have some problems to face.” And he describes the military buildup of both the Soviets and the Chinese.


“In the face of these challenges our defense task then is to develop and support the forces that will have the military capability adequate to deter the use of the forces by those countries that have them. We must recognize that this will have to be done with lower manpower levels and reasonable budgets in the future. Now the important word here is capability. Now a deterrence can be realistic only if our forces have capability.”


Even though “Our friends and allies around the world have increasing military capability, backed by increasing economic strength….Nevertheless, our Nation’s defense programs place before us some very demanding tasks “


“The essential requirement toward achieving realistic deterrence with lower military forces, is that we focus on the capabilities of these forces rather than on more units of forces.”


“As an example, we can be concerned about the number of our tactical air squadrons and make assumptions about their capabilities to the foreign missions. We could double the numbers of our airplanes at costs of billions of dollars, and thus, increase the capabilities, at least on paper.

“But we have elected instead, and we are going to provide improved weapons for our aircraft, and we believe by doing this, we can improve the capability of our forces by factors of 3 and 4, with only modest increases in expenditures.”


“There are, I am convinced, many, many things we can do to substantially improve the capability of our forces, things that we have not done effectively in the past, and I am confident that by applying a better—making a better application of our technology to our military problems,  that this job can be done. And that is why we are requesting in Fiscal 1972 budget, increased funds for research and development. And I am referring here to a real increase, not just enough to overcome inflation but enough to really increase our research and development over the level of effort over the past two years.


“If approved, this real increase in R&D can, of course, impact directly on the members of this industry. This increase reflects both the end of transition budgets and a constant decision to return to this Nation’s source of relative strength, its technology to provide forces for the realistic deterrents we need for the decade of the 70s at realistic budget levels.”


Packard gives some specific objectives in their 1972 budget.


“We are requesting $7.8 billion in the 72 budget [compared to $7 billion in the 71 budget]. We have a budget request based—focused on three significant areas. One is to make sure that we can maintain an adequate level of basic research in the military areas so that there will be no surprises, so that we are not likely to encounter a military sputnik over the years ahead.


“Second, we are requesting the Congress to address the question of funding the important research and development programs to make sure that they are funded so that they can be managed efficiently. And funding has been a problem in many ways. If you go back and change the funding of the programming every year it is impossible to have that program managed in an efficient way.


“And third, and perhaps most important, we are trying to place new emphasis on areas which hopefully can give us a quantum jump in our capability. New initiatives, as we call them. Some of these are already underway, but many of them are considered to be too expensive. The services would rather have a thousand 500-pound bombs than one weapon that would really do the job that might cost $200,000 or something like that. And we finally, I think, are getting our military people to come around to recognize these facts.


“It is my honest opinion that if we are to maintain forces that will insure the realistic deterrents at lower budget levels, the most important contribution we can make toward better capability is to increase the effectiveness of our defense research and development program.


“That is the message I bring to you here tonight, and I believe the Congress will support this emphasis on research and development because I believe they will agree that this country simply cannot afford to take the risks to the security of our people and to our position in world leadership with both lower forces and inferior weapons.


“Now whether an increase now in research and development for defense will bring back the good old days to your profession and to your industry, I cannot predict. I do not know how many of you here tonight are interested in doing research and development for the Defense Department in the future. I hope you have not all been misled into believing that the only field worthy of scientific and intellectual effort are health and environment. I hope some of you are still willing to work on national security problems. I want to tell you, we need you. Your Nation needs you, and we need your best efforts and your new initiatives now.


“And let us all understand that if the Congress includes my request for increased research and development funding for 1972, it has a binding commitment from me, a personal commitment, that research and development programs in the future will be better managed than they have been in the past.


“If you tell us you can develop a new system for national defense, we will expect you to build it, test it, and prove to us that it works, and we will expect that before we buy production quantities.


“Gentlemen, there is going to be less of this brochure engineering than there has been in the past. We want hardware that works, and not paper that claims it is going to work. And working hardware is what we are going to get, hardware that will increase the capability of our smaller forces.


“There are in fact some very important and exciting jobs to be done, and I have been very encouraged as I travel around the country and see some of the things that we are doing. It is a tremendously thrilling thing to see the enthusiasm and capability that we have in this area. We are going to place more dependence on technology in the future, and we are going to defend this greatest free nation in the history, and with your help, she will remain free.


“It has been a great honor and a pleasure for me to be with you here tonight. As I said in the beginning, I think it is a little unfortunate that here the leaders of the industry in this area are unwilling to stand up to that bunch of radicals down the peninsula. I just want to remind all of you that they want to destroy everything our country stands for, what you and I have been working together these past three decades to achieve. The Dave Harrises, the Jane Fondas, and all of those who support them, I want to remind you are your deadly enemies. They want to destroy you as well as me. Don’t let them do it.” [Notation in transcript: – Standing ovation]


1/4/71, Letter to Packard from R. L. Conlisk, WEMA, discussing details of the forthcoming WEMA banquet.

1/25/71, Letter to Packard from James N. Donovan, Varian, saying he is delighted Packard will be speaking.

3/25/71, Letter to Packard from Ed Ferry, WEMA, discussing the banquet and the audience. A copy of the program is attached.

4/16/71,  Letter to Packard from Ed Ferry, thanking him for speaking to WEMA.

3/30/71,  Strongly negative editorial from the Stanford Daily

Another neutral newspaper clipping, paper unknown

Eleven letters to Packard in support of his speech nineteen letters against what he was saying.

Box 2, Folder 18 – Department of Defense


April 29, 1971, Conference on Domestic Action, Ft. McNair

It is not clear exactly what Domestic Action refers to, but judging from Packard’s comments it must have to do with people


4/29/71, Typewritten text of Packard’s talk – written in semi-outline format.


Packard thanks the audience for their “achievements over the past two years,” adding that their program has the strong support of both Secretary Laird and himself. “We have reports that many have done outstanding jobs in the many areas of domestic Action. Yet, it is also the nature of DA that much more can and should be done. I note that the main theme of this conference addresses what needs to be done.”


Packard says he would like to speak “informally” for a few minutes about two  :



“First,  despite all the debate you see in the press about the costs of our weapons systems and the size of our procurement accounts – by far the most costly resource in DOD is people.


“Second, DOD has been an active participant in the current reordering of national priorities, and these priorities have shifted to programs that emphasize people.


“People as a Resource”


“—In both military and civilian organizations the senior people by the nature of their work tend to become insulated from the problems of individuals. Must guard against this. All the effort within DOD to manage dollars, to improve technology, to make progress in attaining a peaceful world – all the effort depends on the people who make up DOD – men and women, civilian and military.


“—Effectiveness is not just efficiency. It includes the satisfaction one feels in doing his job. A great strength of the DAP is that people get a great deal of personal satisfaction in my being part of such an effort.


“—No one can be effective unless he had self respect and a sense of individual dignity. DOD efforts in equal opportunity are directed toward this.


Packard says that while the above points may be well understood, “What is not generally recognized is how much people cost and how fast these costs are going up.



“– Within DOD, pay and related costs have increased by $17.6 billion since FY 64, our pre-Vietnam base year. This is an increase of over 80%. Yet over the same period, defense manpower has decreased 3.5% In short, we are paying a great deal more for less people than we did eight years ago.


“– Another measure is that in 1964 43% of the defense dollar was for pay and related costs. It is now 52% — an increase of almost 10%. Put another way, over half our budget is for people.


“—When you return to your organization, it may be useful for you to point out just how much our manpower costs us. You can properly sell most Domestic Action projects on the proposition that they enable DOD to get better performance and effectiveness from each individual. Clearly, we must do this in a period of declining budgets and rising cost.


Reordering of National Priorities


“—This is a problem of communication and understanding. Few people appreciate the extent to which national priorities have been changed.


“—Critics of DOD talk about the need to stop the increase in Defense spending and the need to reduce defense programs.


“—These critics argue that defense is a source of funds for other Federal programs that are under-funded in the areas of education, health, housing, welfare, mass transit, the environment, and many others.


“—In fact, this reordering has already taken place and DOD has played a leading role.

“—The FY 72 Defense budget is 6.8% of GNP, the lowest since 1951. It is 32.1% of the total Federal budget, the lowest since 1950.


“—Our Defense budget for “72 is $76B which is 50% higher than for 1964. The non-

Defense portion of the budget for the same period is 230% higher. This says the non-Defense increase is four times that for defense.


“—My point is that we in DOD have actively supported and agreed with this change of emphasis in the Federal budget. Our first obligation, of course, is providing adequate security for this country, and in general we believe that this shift has gone about as far as it can.


“—The DOD DAP is additional evidence of our interest in increasing the emphasis on human values and goals. This audience is very familiar with the details of  that program. Truly, the DAP does get double duty for the dollars allocated to defense. This is an added increment to those parts of the non-Defense dollar devoted to human programs.




“—This conference is one way of spreading the word that domestic action has the strong support of Secretary Laird and myself.


“—I wish you good luck in your conference.


“—I am sure that at next year’s conference each activity and department will report ‘We have done more.’



Box 2, Folder 19 – Department of Defense


May 19, 1971, Remarks at U. S. Investment Conference, Washington D. C.


5/19/71, Typewritten text of Packard’s remarks


Packard’s remarks are essentially a summary of the Department of Defense’s position on Vietnam  and the fiscal budget. His audience is apparently made up of investment analysts.


He says that “…our move into Cambodia for an essential, short, military operation may make it seem to the foreign observer that our policies and our aspirations have changed. They have not. On Vietnam we are anxious to keep the negotiations going.”


“North Vietnam has refused to negotiate on any basis short of allowing them to take over South Vietnam. That is why we are pursuing the alternate course we call Vietnamization. The sole purpose of the Cambodian operation is to accelerate the progress of Vietnamization.


“The world is in a period of rapid change and whatever changes come about on the world-wide scene will be influenced by attitudes inside the United States. If the American people seem to be too disunited to assume any international responsibility, there will be a vacuum of leadership that will encourage conflict in the international sphere. It is our hope that the United States can exercise leadership to bring about the change President Nixon envisioned when he said we must move from an era of confrontation to an era of negotiation. Unfortunately, here at home we seem to be going in the opposite direction.


“We believe it is time to bring more than two decades of confrontation during the cold war into a period of negotiation in which countries of the world can begin to devote to peaceful constructive ends at least some portion of the vast resources and energies which have formerly been devoted to increasing military power.”


Packard says that the Nixon administration policies have re-directed Federal resources from defense to non-defense programs.  He says “This has placed a stringent requirement on DOD to maintain strength of military forces at lower levels of expenditure” And he gives the numbers going from $78.7B in FY 1969 to $71.8B in FY 1971.


“One of the important objectives of this exercise is to apply more of the nation’s resources to domestic programs. The reallocation of financial resources is significant. The resulting reallocation of people will – already has – generated some serious problems.”


Packard says “…we are doing what we can in helping local communities.”  However he adds that “The Federal mechanism is not as effective as the market place in allocation of resources in the American economy.


“The skills of the aerospace industry cannot be quickly reorientated (sic). The impact on professionals, scientists, engineers, young graduates. Impact on scientific progress.”


“What does this mean for the investment community?


(1)  “DOD budget and therefore defense-related industries will be lower and will continue lower if we are indeed able to move the world scene from confrontation to negotiation.”


(2)  “The transition to lower defense spending will cause dislocations in economy and the transition will take time….These budget actions are a major reorientation of our priorities. This should be ample evidence that we mean what we say.”


(3)   “It is not a safe course for the United States or its free world allies to go very far in this direction unless the Communist countries are willing – by agreement or by their actions – to move ahead on a similar course.”


(4)  “If the domestic attitude of the U.S. does not respond, if this country refuses to accept its proper responsibility in international affairs, the results for the world could become drastic and traumatic – particularly for people who wish to maintain their freedom.”



Box 2, Folder 20 – Department of Defense


August 3, 1971, Speech at the Defense Management School, Fort Belvoir, VA

This was the opening day ceremony of the school and the audience consisted of representatives from each of the three military departments, staff, faculty, students and wives of DSMS, and selected persons including contractors who contributed to the establishment of the facility.


8/3/71, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech, with some handwritten notations by him.


Packard says it gives him “more than the usual pleasure to be with you here today for the opening of the Defense Systems Management School.” And he explains that the school “…had its origins two and a half years ago in the discussions and assessments we made as we sought ways to improve the management of our development and procurement programs.


“There was no doubt about the need for improvement. As we reviewed program after program –the F-111, the C-5A, the Mark 48, the MBT-70, the Cheyenne, and many more, it was almost impossible to find a major program that was not in trouble. All were behind schedule, although in most cases this was because impossible schedules had been set at the beginning of the program. All showed large cost growths and again, in many cases, this was because unrealistic cost targets had been set or because the Services had accepted “buy-ins” by the contractors. This was a shocking experience for me – case after case of just plain poor management by the largest department of the government and by well-known and large firms in the industry.


“The Congress and the public were critical of this gross mismanagement of this country’s resources and talent. And well they should have been.


“As we sought to discover reasons for this dismal performance and to find ways for improvement, several conclusions came to the surface. One conclusion was that if we wanted better management of these important programs, we must have better managers in charge. The so-called “system,” – the attitudes and practices that had been developed and were condoned over the years – had a great deal to do with the situation. But, given that all of the other factors could be corrected, it was clear to me that putting better managers in charge would do more to bring about improvement than anything else.


“And that is why we are here today. This Defense Systems Management School has been established for the specific purpose of making a substantial improvement in the capability and effectiveness of managers for the important development and production of the Department of Defense.


“We want this school to become the Academy of Management for the Department and for all four Services. We want it to be a school of high distinction where the best of modern management practices are taught. We want it to become a center of research for the improvement of managerial practices. We wanted it to be located in the Washington area where it can both have an influence on and be influenced by the high level people and policies of the department.


“Now, I have a special hope for this important new endeavor we are christening here today. I hope it will be a practical school for, after all, management is a practical profession. Management is getting things done – good management is getting things done right. That is what this school is for – to help us get things done right.


“Toward that end I have some specific suggestions for the policy guidance of this school. First, I want you to remember that the quality of any school is determined only by the quality of the faculty and the quality of its students.”


“As to the faculty,  I hope you will be able to attract and select the best people for your permanent staff I hope you will also bring in distinguished men from the ranks of public and private management for lectures, seminars and other activities which will expose your students to the best practices of good management throughout the country.


“As to your students, I hope you will establish high standards for admission. You should admit no student from any Service unless he is committed to a career in management. Today’s problems of defense management are just too large to be handled by the two-year wonder. These jobs can be done right only by men committed to a career in management I hope you will not waste your time, your energies, and your resources on any others.


“Don’t rely on computers to solve your management problems. Computers can’t think. What we need most of all is more good judgment. Plain common sense – the ability to make a good decision and stand up for it.


“I am pleased to note that you have assembled a fine faculty and a fine group of students for the opening session.”


“Finally, I want you to know that this Defense Systems Management School we are opening here today has the complete support of my office. I have high hopes for what you can accomplish with this new endeavor. I assure you that Secretary Laird and I consider this a very important step in the all important goal of giving this country more and better defense for the billions of dollars we have to spend.


“You are entering upon a new and an exciting and important journey here today. If you and those that follow you do your job well, you can make an enormous contribution to your country. You have my encouragement, my support, and my blessing.”


7/9/81, Letter to Packard from Brig. Gen. William E. Thurman, Defense Systems Management College, thanking Packard for speaking at their “Unveiling Ceremony.” The General says, “The day would not have been complete without you because of your efforts toward making the defense systems Management College what it is today. We speak of you often and use many of your thoughts with each class to establish the purpose of the College.,”



Box 2, Folder 21 – Department of Defense


August 11, 1971, Major Defense Systems Acquisition, DOD/NSIA Symposium,

Washington D. C.


8/11/71, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech.


Packard says he is pleased that this symposium is being held at this time. ”During these past two and a half years we have been giving this subject a great deal of attention as you know. We have made what I believe is a good start in delineating some new policies and procedures which will make it possible for the Department and the Services to work more effectively with the Industry. I believe these new policies and procedures will enable the government to obtain more and better equipment for the billions of dollars of the taxpayers’ money that are being spent. I believe also these new policies can result in a stronger, healthier defense-related industry in the future.”


Packard says there will be continuing pressures on the defense budget and funds available for defense systems and equipment will be limited. This limitation, he says, is the result of a general anti-defense attitude in the country, and large cost over-runs by the Services and by industry. “There is no way to avoid this criticism except to do a better job in the future.


“When a system ends costing twice as much as the original contract target, as did the C-5A for example, there is no explanation but to admit it was bad management….The only answer is to find a way to do these jobs right and I presume that is why we are here today.”


Proceeding to outline some new policies and procedures, Packard says that “The first step for a successful Major Defense Systems Acquisition is to make the right decisions in the beginning. To do this is not a simple matter.” He goes over some examples of reasons this decision can be difficult.


Saying that “We are doing a number of things which we believe will enable better decisions to be made at the beginning of a major program,” he gives some specifics.


“First, we in the Department of Defense are going to better describe and understand what we want and need. As a part of this you can expect us to focus more on effectiveness and less on platforms. For example, in many cases it is just very much more efficient and practical to double the capability of weapons than it is to double the number of platforms to deliver the present weapons. Secondly, we are taking a broader perspective on what we already have and what we might need….We first describe what we want to be able to do within … functional areas, look at what we already have, and then identify what needs to be done.”


“We want to keep programs in Advanced Development longer, until we are sure we know what we are doing. We want to put more reliance on hardware and less on paper studies in Advanced Development.”


“…As an example, the AX program is based upon competitive prototypes that will be built and tested before we approve this system for procurement or select a contractor. In the case of the B-1, there will be a prototype before we approve this system for acquisition. The HARPOON missile will be expensively tested and developed in preproduction form before production is approved.”


“As I reviewed program after program beginning in the spring of 1969, almost all were in trouble from a common fault – production had been started before engineering development was finished. I am sure you all know all about this problem. Several important policies and procedures have been established to help avoid the disastrous results of concurrency:


  1. “We will not use total package procurement contracts on major programs;


  1. “In general, major development contracts will be cost-incentive type with performance milestones rather than calendar milestones, and will require close working relationships between Service managers and Industry managers;


  1. “Fixed-price production contracts will be negotiated on major programs after the development has proceeded far enough that we know what we are to produce, and we know it will work the way we want it to work.


“Again, we have established procedures to assure that programs are in fact set up the way they should be – that appropriate milestones of performance are established and are met before the program moves ahead.


“What we are proposing is very simple – these major acquisition programs will turn out better only if they are managed better. There is no better way to improve the management of a program than to get a better manager and give him the responsibility and authority to manage, We are making some progress in this direction. All of the Services have accepted the need to select better people for program management.


“We opened a new school last week at Fort Belvoir to improve management training. We have made some progress to clarify and improve the authority of the project manager. We have not yet gone as far as we need to go. The decision making process on many programs is still too much of a committee process in most of the Services. Worse than that, the members of the committees that make the decisions often know very little about the project except what they have been told and the decisions are often driven by the wrong considerations. There is, however, already considerable improvement.


“Two and a half years ago we had only a few programs that were going the way they should. Often I would go to a briefing on the status of a project and was completely disgusted with what I heard. Last week I was briefed on the status of four projects by one of the Services and I came away very proud of the way these projects were being managed.


‘There is, then, some hope we can, working together – the Services, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the Industry – do this job of “Major Defense Systems Acquisition  the way this country should expect us to do it. I hope we will gain a better understanding of how to do the job the way it should be done. I wish to emphasize that better management of these important programs is a responsibility above the parochial interests of the Services and above the selfish interests of the Industry. This would be a big challenge in times of rising budgets and enthusiasm for defense – it is an even greater challenge for us in the environment of this decade of the 1970s.”


8/11/71, Copy of DOD News Release with full text of Packard’s speech



Box 2, Folder 22 – Department of Defense


September 10, 1971, Federal Bar Association, New Orleans, LA


9/10/71, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech


“Today,” Packard says, “The rate of change in both domestic and foreign affairs perhaps exceeds any previously experienced. Our problem today is to guide and fashion these forces of change with wisdom and patience so that change is accomplished in a peaceful and orderly way. I believe the President’s programs – foreign and domestic – provide the basis for bringing about change in such a way that we can and we will move away from war and violence and toward lasting peace.


“It is our job in the Defense Department to provide the military strength adequate to support the President’s foreign policy for the decade of the 1970s.” And Packard refers to other priorities of the Defense Department. “We have substantially reduced the defense share of the Federal budget to enable the nation to devote more resources to the attainment of non-defense goals. But we believe that, without adequate national security strength, all these other goals in fields of domestic policy would be placed in jeopardy.


“We have reoriented our national defense programs in keeping with the Nixon Doctrine and our supporting National Security Strategy of Realistic Deterrence. In the process we have made significant reductions in the levels of our military forces.. In achieving these results, the greatly scale of our Vietnam involvement has been a major accomplishment. This and other reductions have made it possible to cut the cost of our defense forces from 9.5% of the Gross national Product in FY 1968 to only 6.8% in FY 1972.”


“We have now gone as far as we safely can go in reducing the defense budget. Further reductions in the defense budget below the present level could be very dangerous to our position of world leadership in the decade ahead.”


“In 1964 the United States had a significant superiority in strategic nuclear forces over the Soviet Union. The Peoples Republic of China had no nuclear forces.


“Today, the situation is vastly different. The Soviets not only have larger land-based inter-continental missiles than we, they have about 40% more of such weapons than we have. Their submarine-based nuclear force is growing by leaps and bounds and will be equal in size to ours in two or three years. In other aspects as well, their nuclear forces have been rapidly expanded since 1964.


“The result of this Soviet buildup is that now the Soviet Union stands on a par with us in overall offensive strategic power and surpasses us in defensive strategic weapons systems. The Peoples Republic of China also has tested nuclear weapons and missiles, and could, therefore, have in this decade a strategic force capable of threatening our friends and allies in Asia and perhaps even the U. S.


“Hopefully, we may, by careful negotiations with the Soviets, be able eventually to reduce the level of destructive nuclear power possessed by both sides to a lower level. But I believe we cannot and must not, under any circumstances, make unilateral reductions in the already-restrained levels of our nuclear forces, as some recommend.”


“Even with an agreement – which might be reached in the near future – I do not anticipate that there could be a significant and immediate reduction in the Defense Budget, particularly in view of rising manpower costs as we move toward an all-volunteer force.


“Another area of concern is Naval Forces. This is so because of the large Soviet Naval buildup since 1964. In that year, we had a decisive superiority in every class of combat ship in both numbers and capability except for non-nuclear submarines. During the past few years the Soviets have greatly expanded their naval forces, and now they can challenge our Navy in the Mediterranean and elsewhere, sending impressive naval task forces throughout the world’s oceans.


“Our planning for the future must include funds to strengthen our Navy, and it does.”


“…the national strength we need to give enlightened leadership to this troubled world is more…than just military strength. It includes our moral strength and our economic strength. This was explicitly taken into account when we framed our National Security Strategy of Realistic Deterrence. This strategy is embodied in our new Total force concept which seeks to utilize all appropriate resources for deterrence  — U.S. and the free world – in order to capitalize best on all available assets. Moral and economic strength are part and parcel of the overall strength necessary for this country to exercise its role in world affairs and to work in pursuit of President Nixon’s goal of achieving a generation of peace.”


“We need strength and moral fiber at home in order to succeed abroad. A nation that is weak internally and timid in spirit, cannot provide stabilizing leadership in international affairs.”


“I deplore any attitude that says – let Washington solve all problems. I have been in government long enough to know that Washington alone simply cannot do it.


“I believe it is very important that we arrest any attitude of increasing dependence on Washington. We must instead reemphasize our proven traditional concept that individuals working together in every part of this country – South, North, East and West – have the brains and energy to solve most of the problems that affect their daily lives.”


“Individual responsibility, decentralization of political power, and voluntary action in a pluralistic society are sources of American national strength. And there are other sources of our national strength to be protected and cultivated – free speech, full, open and enlightened debate on national policies, and a system of impartial justice based on law.


“Differences of opinion on the domestic front are not evidence of weakness. It is the nature of a democracy that we encourage a free exchange of ideas and must have constructive and peaceful dissent. But how dissent is expressed is important. Dissent expressed in violence is anarchy, not democracy. Democracy requires that we recognize one another’s rights. Violence is the antithesis of reasoned dissent and a denial of the rights of others.


“I need not explain to this audience that free debate, the rule of law, and the integrity of the process of law enforcement are essential ingredients of our national strength. Nor need I remind you of your obligation as members of the bar to uphold these things. It may be true that some countries can be at least temporarily strong without these things – but not the United States.”


“These historic principles need not, and do not, block needed change. On the contrary, they facilitate change. In my experience both prior to and within the Department of Defense, I have found that rational discussion among reasonable men can lead to change on both sides. We seek the opportunity to talk with those interested in change.”


“The Federal government must serve all of the people all of the time. It cannot yield to violence and disruption by a militant minority. And, your government – and the great majority of the American people – are determined that threats to bring the people’s government to a halt will not be permitted to succeed.


“In summary, I believe that we must emphasize a sense of responsibility in our deliberations and in our debates and actions to bring about change. This administration is taking steps to move toward peace and justice in a responsible fashion.”


Packard says despite the troubled times he is encouraged by the progress made over the past two and a half years.


“On the international front, we are well on our way to ending American military involvement in Vietnam without abandoning our friends in that part of the world. We are talking to the Soviet Union about strategic arms limitations, but we remain firm against precipitous, unilateral reductions. Navy Under Secretary John Warner will begin important talks with the Soviets next month on items of mutual interest to the two leading sea powers. There has been some hopeful progress recently on Berlin, and the President has reopened communications with the Peoples Republic of China.


“On the domestic front, I see signs of progress in drug control, in race relations, in reducing poverty and suffering, in educational opportunities, in controlling pollution, in fighting crime and toward new economic prosperity.


“I particularly applaud the President’s recent moves on the economic front. I believe these actions clearly recognize the fundamental problems underlying the serious inflationary pressures as well as the changing pattern of world economics.


“We may not reach the millenium in the 1970s but I believe we are off to a good start. I am confident that your organization, under the leadership of Normand Poirier and Dick Kleindienst, will continue to make a great contribution to the preservation of the vitality of our democracy – preservation of the vitality of our democracy – preservation of a national environment of excellence in which each individual can make his and here contribution to progress to prosperity and to peace for the next generation and beyond.”


9/10/71, Press Release from Department of Defense with full text of Packard’s speech

9/10/71, Copy of the program of the Federal Bar Association Annual Convention

9/10/71, Typewritten copy of speech given at this Convention by John Warner Director , Ocean Affairs – amended by hand written notations.

7/20/71, Letter to Margaret Paull (Packard’s Secretary) from Elaine Crane Assistant to Deputy Attorney General Richard Kleindienst talking about details of the banquet at the Convention.

8/20/71, Letter to Packard from Marshall Gardner , The Federal Bar Association, discussing details of Packard’s trip to New Orleans.

9/9/71, Memorandum from Col. James Boatner giving itinerary for Packard’s trip to New Orleans.



Box 2, Folder 23 – Department of Defense


November 4, 1971, Meeting With Newsmen


11/4/71, Typewritten transcription of question and answer session Packard had with newsmen.


Packard starts by introducing Dr. Albert C. Hall who, he explains, will be the new Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence. Packard goes on to discuss the intelligence field and what he has in mind for this job.


“Let me go back now and talk about intelligence in general terms, and in terms of the three areas that we sometimes think about, which is national intelligence, tactical intelligence, and technical intelligence. National intelligence is that information and its interpretation that is needed by the President, his Cabinet, the Secretary and other officials to make important decisions.”


“Tactical intelligence, I think, is just about self-explanatory. That’s what the field commander needs to command his forces and this is, of course, a very critical matter because the extent to which he knows what the enemy is going to do, he’s in a position then to command his forces in a more effective way.


“…as we address the question of what kind of new weapons we should develop, it’s very important that we have some understanding about the characteristics of the enemy weapons because we are anxious to either have superior weapons, weapons that will be able to counter whatever the enemy capability may be.”


In response to questions as to the specific nature of Dr. Hall’s position Packard says he (Dr. hall) will be coordinating the budget control of the intelligence operations, but will not be supervising the operations themselves.


Another question asks about two complaints; one, that with each Service and the CIA “doing their own thing” there is no direct civilian control, and two, with all the “mountains” of data collected whoever gets time to read it all?


In answer to the first question Packard says “…our problem [in gathering all types of intelligence] is not to say there can be only one intelligence activity because the issue is just too complex, but to try to be sure that we bring all of these into focus….We will be looking at those issues – the balance between technical, tactical and national intelligence and the balance between those people who are involved in those areas, [is] going to be a very important part of [Dr. Hall’s] job.


“On the use of resources, this again is an issue and as I’ve intimated you have two problems in intelligence. One is to collect all the information that’s available and the second is to be able to understand what that information means. We have already spent some time in addressing this matter of balance between how much information we’re collecting and our ability to utilize it effectively, and that again will be something that will be continually addressed.”


Q: The questioner says he understands there are 140,000 people or so on the Defense Department payroll involved in intelligence. And he asks if this number will be cut.


A: Packard says “I couldn’t give you any judgment about what reductions, if any, can be made. I’m confident from what I know about it that we can do a more efficient job of managing these resources, but I just can’t give you any specific predictions nor even a very good calibration point that I can confirm to you today.”


Q: “Again, without centralized authority, Mr. Secretary, what can you do about the problem of redundancy?”


A: “The way you worry about the redundancy of functions is to be able to examine what this group is doing and to be able to do that in relation to what some other group is doing If you find there are duplications that are not appropriate, you can make the necessary changes. I think one way to consider these staff jobs, and this applies not only to intelligence but to other jobs, one of the responsibilities is to make sure that there’s not unnecessary duplication and second to assure that we’re not leaving something out, and this applies to DDR&E and other people as well as this function.


Q: “Let me raise another criticism and see what your answer will be. The criticism would be that a businessman’s approach to intelligence is the wrong technique and the wrong place. Intelligence by its nature has to be inefficient, has to be redundant, and that to use normal business efficiency methods is going to deprive you of some opposing intelligence views from the field.”


A: “I think that’s perhaps an oversimplification, but there is something to that, and it relates to the sort of thing I talked about in national intelligence. It’s impossible to have one crystal ball that’s going to be perfect, and I’m not at all troubled with maybe having two separate groups involved in certain of these things simply because you have no assurance that one group is going to do it right and maybe have a little competition is a helpful thing, so I don’t think you just go through this and say there can be no duplication.


Q: A questioner asks about foreign aid.


A: ”I’d be very glad to say a word about foreign aid. As a good many of you know, I’ve been working very closely in this foreign affairs area since I came out here. I started out working closely with Dr. Kissinger, the NSC, and doing some of the analysis that resulted in the backup for the Nixon Doctrine; the decision that we would move toward more reliance on our friends and allies, that we would move from an era of confrontation into an era of negotiation has been something that I’ve been very much interested in and very close to. I think that most of you know probably that I have supported the President very strongly, even in the Cambodian incident, and so I’m fully and enthusiastically behind the things that the President has been doing these past 2 ½ years and I’ve been frankly very pleased to have had some part in working with the White House and the President in supporting this program.


“To me, the Senate action last Friday was an absolute disaster. Here at the time when we’re trying to move into a new and, I think, very important inter-national posture where the President has moved out into some areas which I see as beginning a new era in the United States relationship with the rest of the world, not only the Free World but the entire world, and for at this time the Senate to undercut this whole program by voting against foreign aid, by turning down the foreign aid bill, is just about the worst thing that could have happened.


“The thing that troubles me in particular is that I don’t believe that a good many of the Senators who were involved in this really understand what a serious blow they’ve given to this matter.”


“The trouble with the situation is that the damage has been done, and the confidence that our friends and allies and other people around the world can have in what we will do in the future to support them and to work with them has been seriously undercut by this Senate action. It will help if the full foreign aid request of the President is reinstated, either through a continuing resolution—and this as you know will have to be done before the 15th of this month because that’s when the present continuing resolution runs out – or by a substantial reinstatement of the original request, I think any piecemeal program that cuts in any substantive way to military assistance or economic assistance will just confirm the fears that have been generated by this action.”


Q: The questioner says that critics say it is meaningless to “shower” arms on a country if the population is not behind the local government; and asks why that won’t happen in Cambodia.


A: “I just can assure you that we’ve learned a lesson. We’re not going to get involved in Cambodia. We have a very low presence there, but at the same time the Cambodians are very anxious to defend their country and the thing that everybody forgets is there’s one way for this war to end in a hurry and that’s just for the North Vietnamese to go home.


Q: A questioner asks if there is a direct link between the cutoff of aid and withdrawal of troops from South Vietnam.


A: The answer is no, and I would not want to comment about the withdrawal of troops. As you know, the President is going to make an announcement here in a couple of weeks and I think we’ll just wait and see what he says about that matter.


Q: Mr. Secretary, it’s not clear to me whether you’re saying this is a disaster no matter what happens from now on or whether you think there’s some way to save the chestnut and that’s to back out of the fire.


A: “What I’m saying is that I think a significant amount of damage has been done almost no matter what happens.”


Q: “Secretary Packard, are you just inferring that our allies are going to lose confidence or do you have specific concerns from certain countries?


A: I can’t fill in specific details today, but we’ve had specific concerns from a great many very important people.


Q: I wonder as you survey the legislative wreckage, and you said that you did not anticipate the shellacking you got in the senate, and it’s been pretty clear that Senator Symington and others on the Hill don’t trust the Pentagon and what it’s doing in these foreign countries before you’re not giving them an adequate amount of information, and yesterday we went around about how tight your ISA is about telling what it’s doing in the world and what the military loans are doing, and they won’t even admit when you call them and say what are you doing about this aerospace plan in Greece, and we could go on and on. My question is, have you perhaps thought about reassessing what you do say publicly to try and explain what this military aid is all about and what you’re trying to do and what concessionary loans are and what they’re buying with them and where they’re going. I think you have a credibility gap.


A: I don’t want to answer those specific questions, but I’m quite willing to admit that we’ve failed to get the story over. As I said, I’ve been working in this issue very closely. I’ve been very enthusiastic about it. I think it’s the right way to go and somehow we haven’t gotten the story over. What we can do to improve in the future I’m sure we will give some consideration to. I can’t talk about specific actions.



Box 2, Folder 24 – Department of Defense


November 21, 1971, Society of Medical consultants to the Armed Forces


11/21/71, Ten 3×5 inch cards upon which Packard wrote an outline of his comments.


Thanks for 26 years of important contributions


Medical practice and medical research are important to Services.


Acknowledge Dr. Richard Wilbut


This has been an interesting and busy three years for Department – much criticism’ but satisfying progress


Changes in organization and management philosophy


Re-ordering of priorities:  DOD budget 9.5% if GNP to 6.8%


Development of Foreign Policy for the decade of 1970s


President Nixon has made a historic transition from an era of confrontation into an era of negotiation


Post WW II Foreign Policy – Dominant military, dominant economic


Containment of Communism NATO, CENTO, SEATO, DOREA, JAPAN


The world has changed from period which spawned this policy


Soviet military strength, economy growth – Europe, Japan, also Korea, Thailand, Taipei


Split in Communist Block – competition between free world remains but war between major powers is not attractive…Negotiation, Strength, Partnership


Vietnam – Most influential


Indo China – key to stabilization of SEA

Korea, Japan


NATO – U. S. Must remain


Mid-East, South Asia and Indian Ocean


Negotiation – Salt, Berlin, MBFR, Mid-East


Foreign Aid essential


Moral of friends essential


World relations are going through major changes


President Nixon has shown great leadership – he needs our support


11/3/71, Letter to Packard from Bernard Pisani, M.D., society of Medical Consultants to the Armed Forces, discussing details of their Meeting

Undated, Typewritten draft of outline “for possible remarks to Society of Medical Consultants to the Armed Forces.” Source not clear.

1972 – Packard Speeches

Box, Folder 12 – General Speeches


February 8, 1972, R & D Programs in Defense, Von Neumann Lecture Panel, IEEE Wincon, Los Angeles, CA


2/8/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech


Packard says “…defense R&D has provided about half of the federal government’s R&D support….I think if one looks back over the years a very good case can be made that defense R&D dollars have made a significant contribution to the progress of science and technology, and resulting commercial application in this country.”


“Now, while defense R&D contributions have had this important impact, the prime purpose of the R&D program is to support the national security policy of the country. I would like to talk with you about that for a minute or two, because I believe that some of the problems that have been troubling this country are in large part a result of foreign policies we followed prior to 1969.”


Packard says that some “very basic” changes have been made in America’s international security policy. “Actually, I don’t think this country yet recognizes what bold and imaginative leadership President Nixon has given this matter. The new course he has charted will have a significant impact on defense R&D directions and trends because these should be tailored to meet the defense requirement of the future.”


Packard recalls that since WW II the U.S., being the dominant economic power in the world, provided security for our NATO allies and well as for Japan and other countries in Asia. “In addition,” he says “we provided the countries in Europe, and Japan, economic aid and many other forms of assistance. In total I think that to a very large degree the troubles we have been experiencing result from the fact that this policy – while very effective and desirable and correct in perhaps the first two decades after World War II – reached the end of its usefulness in the 1960s. I believe we are fortunate to have a President who recognized this and who has been able to take some very significant steps to make a change.”





Packard explains that President Nixon initiated a study to assess just “what federal resources are likely to be available for all of our national goals, and how these resources might appropriately be reallocated between defense and the nation’s other priorities. From these studies, what has become known as the Nixon doctrine began to emerge.”


“First, the President said we will maintain a nuclear deterrent adequate to meet any threat to the security of the United States or to our allies.”  Packard emphasizes that the President said “adequate nuclear deterrent,” not the “substantial nuclear superiority” he says we have had. “That is no longer possible in any real sense. Because it is not, it is absolutely necessary that we maintain an adequate nuclear deterrent, and the defense programs are designed to do that. The President also said that we will help other nations develop the capability of defending themselves. This simply says that in the future we will not take the full responsibility for the security of all our friends around the world. They should take a larger share of this load. The President also said we will honor all of our treaty commitments; we will act to defend our interests whenever or wherever they are threatened – but where our interests are not involved, our role will be limited. We will not intervene militarily.”


Along with the changes in the international security policies of the country, Packard says “The changes made in the defense policy including defense research and development programs, have been designed to implement this new overall policy.” He gives an example: “In 1968 the defense budget was 9.5 % of our gross national product. In 1973 the defense budget will be 6.5% of the GNP.” And he points out that this drop of three percentage points represents over $30 billion.


“This reduction in expenditures , and the reductions in manpower, make it imperative that we maintain an adequate nuclear deterrent. The President has also expressed this in saying that we should put more reliance on negotiation and more reliance on partnership, both based on a position of strength.”


Packard says negotiations are proceeding with the Soviets on reduction of strategic arms; and while he sees it likely that “some agreement” will be reached, he doesn’t think a substantial reduction in strategic nuclear forces on the part of either nation will result.


“It is going to be very important that this country maintain a strong effort in research and development relating to the strategic nuclear area, and that is recognized in the 1973 budget. We are continuing some important programs – MIRV [Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicle]for example. This program received considerable criticism, but thank God we have it. If we did not, we would be in a very serious situation today with relation to the Soviet Union’s buildup of forces. We are also adding some money to increase and improve the command and control capability of our strategic forces And, we are recommending the development of the long range underwater missile….”


Packard says “We have reduced manpower in the military services by a substantial amount….We can afford the future lower level of forces, but we cannot afford to have lower level of forces with inferior weapons….Much has been accomplished already [to improve the capability of our armed forces], but I am convinced that significant improvements in the capability of these forces in the future can be had by further application of technology – a continued high level of research and development.”


“As you all well know, there are several facets to research and development. I want to say a word or two about the basic research program of the Defense Department, and then I want to talk about the problems of development – because a great deal of time and energy has been spent in determining how the country can get more for its dollars in new weapons development.”


“A few figures might help put this in context. The defense budget contains a significant element for what we call basic research. That number in 1973 will be $350 million. In 1965 it was $380 million.” When the effect of inflation is taken into account Packard says the actual reduction has been about 30%.


“In the area of exploratory development – here we find there has been some increase, but very little. In 1965 the figure was $1.099 billion, and in 1973 it will be $1.145 billion. This is slightly more, but in terms of level of effort and in terms of what it will buy – significantly less.


“Finally, I want to say a word about the management of research and development in the Defense Department. There are really two  basic problems, that I think you recognize. The first is in deciding what is going to be developed, and these decisions must be made in terms of designing the forces for our future requirements. The decisions cannot be made in isolation, in any sense of the word. There are tremendous diversionary pressures at work. The Army very seldom steps up and agrees to reduce its manpower so that the Navy can have more ships and the Air force can have more airplanes – and vice versa. There are pressures by the industrial people for their pet programs, and these pressures come not only directly to the Services or the Pentagon, they also are directed to a considerable extent to members of the Congress.


“There are very difficult problems in making good decisions, and then problems in getting those decisions accepted. Generally speaking, if an organization doesn’t accept a program or a policy, it is not going to make it work. We found it was necessary to spend quite a bit of time getting programs accepted by the

Services. I feel we made good progress in this procedure because we tried hard to bring into this decision making process a combination of military experience, military judgments, and good objective analysis.”


“Another thing that was important to make sure that each of the Services had just as much voice in court as any one of the OSD offices. That had not been the case before….We tried very carefully to make it clear that Service recommendations carried just as much weight with us as did the recommendations of systems analysis or any other of the OSD offices. I hope this policy will be continued, because I think it was conducive to better decisions.


“The second problem that we have in all R&D is how to implement the programs that have been approved….One of the things that became evident to me early in the game was that there had been to much reliance on paperwork in these studies. One of the most important reasons I wanted to see the Services go to prototype programs is because I think it will help them develop some better habits and better approaches to these important development jobs.”


“We tried to cut back on directives. I made a check before I left Washington, and found that we were spending $135 million less on paper work in 1971 than we did in 1969. As far as I can see, nobody missed a bit of it. So at least some progress has been made.


“I believe there has been some improvement in the approach to the management of research and development in the defense Department during these past three years. I think most important of all, however, is the matter that I touched on at the beginning. There has been a significant change in the direction of our foreign policy – our international security policy – and this has provided a better base for future planning. In the long run, this new assessment of American foreign policy may turn out to be the most significant contribution of this period.”


“Now on some specific policies, I think one of the things that has happened during the past decade in the defense department is that there has been too much emphasis on systems analysis. There has been a trend to try and cost out the programs too precisely, and to try and make industry pay in one way or another for any benefit they might achieve in translating defense research and development into commercial programs. This attitude came to a head in 1969 when the general disillusionment with Vietnam – the anti-defense attitude – was at its peak. Senator Mansfield, as you know, said we couldn’t have any research programs unless they had a direct relevance to military requirements. He essentially said, you can’t do those things which would tend to enable research and development to be useful for other purposes than defense. The policies on independent research and development also have been poor. The attitude has tended to require that independent research and development , supported by companies, be directed only to defense requirements. Here again it will be much better if companies are encouraged to use some of their independent research and development funding  to try and translate some of their defense technology into non-defense products. I hope this policy can be changed. I don’t think anything very specific is necessary except some expression at the higher levels that this is appropriate, and I would encourage that to be done.


“While the defense has, as I have said, supported the largest individual share of federal research and development , there are a great many areas where I believe better cooperation between the defense Department and other agencies of the government would be helpful. We tried to work together and I think that we did make some progress in better cooperation.


“There are many areas where development within NASA’s field also was useful in defense programs. We tried to get together on programs, for example on short takeoff aircraft, which would have both commercial and defense requirements. I hope that programs like these can move ahead.”


“So, in summary ladies and gentlemen, you might conclude that I believe we have had some very interesting problems to address these past three years. I think that some significant progress has been made, particularly in the all important area of recognizing that this country needed a new approach and a new policy for both its international affairs and also the way in which it handles some of its defense programs, including research and development. I am very encouraged to see the interest in this subject here, and I am sure that with the support and continued of people in industry and the continued fine work by your representatives here from the government, there can be some real progress made toward better solutions and better outcomes for these very important problems.”


2/8/72, Printed program for the Convention

1/26/72, HP memo from Dave Kirby to Dave Packard giving some information about press interest

1/26/72, Letter to Packard from H. A. Samulon, General Chairman, Wincon ’72 thanking him for agreeing to participate in their Convention, and giving some details about the schedule

1/31/72, Letter to Packard and two other principal speakers from Edward E. David Jr., from The White House, discussing speaking subject material

2/1/72, Letter to Packard from H. A. Samulon, discussing arrangements for breakfast on Feb. 8, 1972

2/11/72, Letter to Packard from H. A. Samulon thanking him for participating in the Convention

2/8/72, Copy of a speech given at the Convention by Dr. Lewis M. Branscomb, titled Environment for Innovation



Box 3, Folder 13 – General Speeches


February 15, 1972,  Measurement Managers Symposium, Palo Alto, CA


Packard is just returning from his service with the Department of Defense, and was asked to speak at this Symposium  on metrology sponsored by HP.


2/15/72, Copy of text of Packard’s speech handwritten, often in outline form, by Packard


Packard says that the three years in DOD was a “great experience – worked closely with White House in development of President Nixon’s foreign policy – development of plans for military forces to support strategy.


He says Nixon’s policies will provide a “strong military defense and not the enemy of peace – the guardian of peace.”


“Forces provided for in 1973 budget: Lower levels of manpower , more capable weapons.


“America can not afford both lower levels of manpower and inferior weapons.”


Packard gives many line by line budget figures and totals it up as

“Budget authority – 83.4 B, 6.3 B over FY 1972

Expenditures – 76.5 B, up 700 M from 1972

6.4 % of GNP vs 9.5% in 1972 – lowest drain on economy in 22 years


He says the budget puts “more reliance on technology, much attention to improving management of development and procurement.

”More reliance on testing hardware and less reliance on paperwork


“The procedures that have been followed in past have not given us reliable equipment.


“Equipment is more complex – F4 – mean time before failure a few hours, barely time of one mission.


“Reliability must be designed into equipment – rigid adherence to mil specs does not assure reliability – Hardware must be built and tested and the results fed back to correct problems. The lessons we have learned here at HP – do not sell it until you have tested production prototypes is the lesson the military people have not yet learned.


“We made some progress – prototype program – on smaller equipment. Will be hard to convince bureaucracy that a commercial product not built to mil spec may be more reliable than  a mil spec product simply because all the bugs have been shaken out and fixed.


“New office of operational testing established – make sure every new program has adequate testing built in and is done before too much money spent on production.


“Contract procedures:  Competitive bidding not always good – mC5A worst possible kind of contract. Cost incentive and sole source often gets best value for money.


“This has been a difficult three years for DOD. Criticism has been loud and bitter and often distorted and unfair.


[There are] “fine capable people in DOD and all services – just as you will find anywhere in our society. They are dedicated, capable, and they deserve our support. When we find it frustrating remember they are under great pressure from criticism, we should help when we can.


“Measurement has been my first love since the late 1930s when I used to drool over the General Radio catalog. It has been an exciting field and will continue to grow in importance. You have each made an important contribution to the great progress – there is no end to the opportunity ahead.”


2/14-16/72, Copy of printed program for the Symposium

2/14/72 Typewritten program with comments on intent of sessions

2/14/72, Typewritten list of attendees



Box 3, Folder 14 – General Speeches


February 17, 1972, Strong Defense-Guardian of Peace, The Union League Club of Chicago


3/17/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech


Packard says that he was “fortunate to have had the opportunity to serve during the first three years of President Nixon’s administration. I say that for many reasons, but foremost because these have been three years of bold and imaginative leadership by our President.


“If anyone doubts that bold and imaginative leadership was needed, just recall for yourselves the state of this nation in 1968. And he enumerates several items:


Rioting and burning on the streets

Universities in shambles

Over half a million servicemen and women in Vietnam with no plan to bring them home

In the second quarter of 1968 an average of 360 American killed in Vietnam each week – hundreds more injured

Domestically, inflation destroying all previous economic progress


“In short,” Packard says, “America was in deep trouble at home and abroad.”


“If anyone doubts the effectiveness of President Nixon’s bold and imaginative leadership during these three years, compare those dark days of 1968 with the spring of 1972.” And he ticks off several points:


Peaceful and legal protest has replaced rioting and burning on the streets

Universities are back in the business of education

Our forces in Vietnam have been reduced by 418,000

By the fourth quarter of 1971 average number of Americans killed each week reduced to six

Bold steps taken to control inflation

Confidence in American leadership at home and abroad rising”


Packard says there is something “even more important about these three years. When the history of the 20th Century is recorded, 1968 will be recognized as the end of one era and the beginning of a new one. The end of the old era came when American military and economic commitments finally overextended our nation’s resources to the breaking point.


“By 1968 most people in Washington and throughout the country recognized we were in serious trouble. In the Senate the liberals were making the most critical noises, although their past policies were the very ones which had caused the disastrous situation. Even Senator Fulbright, Dean of the Senate in foreign affairs and chairman of the foreign Affairs Committee, had no particular plan except to withdraw from the world. He wanted troops withdrawn from everywhere and all aid stopped. Others wanted substantial cuts in defense. Many advocated immediate withdrawal from Vietnam even though at that time it would have been unconditional surrender by the United States. There was no plan, no usable policy suggested by the Senate majority. They were simply wailing and flailing.”


Packard says it was fortunate that President Nixon had the courage to seek a new course. “It is President’s Nixon’s courage and vision that has made his leadership possible. It is because he charted a bold and positive course for America that his leadership has been effective.”


“[The] extensive planning for President Nixon’s new course toward a generation of peace was of great importance to our planning and budgeting work in the Defense Department. We had an important part in helping to develop these policies and they, in turn, provided the foundation for our planning of future military forces.


“The new policies were first delineated in Guam in 1969 by the President and have come to be known as the Nixon Doctrine. The President in his address to the nation on January 20 of this year restated this new course for our foreign policy in the following terms:


  • We will maintain a nuclear deterrent adequate to meet any threat to the security of the United States or of our allies.
  • We will help other nations develop the capability of defending themselves.
  • We will faithfully honor all of our treaty commitments.
  • We will act to defend our interests whenever and wherever they are threatened any place in the world.
  • But where our interests or our treaty commitments are not involved our role will be limited.
  • We will not intervene militarily.
  • But we will use our influence to prevent war.
  • If war comes we will use our influence to try to stop it.
  • Once war is over we will do our share in helping to bind up the wounds of those who have participated in it.


“This is a decisive change from the American foreign policy which prevailed from 1945 to 1968. During that period we were undisputed in military and economic strength everywhere in the world, and we thought we could act accordingly. President John F. Kennedy set the stage to carry the same foreign policy into the decade of the 1960s. In his inaugural address in 1961 he said:


‘We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support  any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.’


Neither President Kennedy nor other leaders of the Democratic Party foresaw that this policy would commit us to Vietnam and bring America to the brink of disaster before the end of the decade.”


Packard says President Nixon’s policy is “designed to deter major conflict, limit minor conflict, and accommodate to change. It is based on three pillars – negotiation, partnership, and strength. Important steps have already been taken building on these pillars.


“We have already made considerable progress in negotiating a better understanding with the Soviet Union on a number of issues which will have a major impact on the future peace and security of the world. A treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons on the ocean seabeds has been concluded. A new treaty on Berlin, and a treaty on germ warfare, are two other important steps. Negotiations are underway with the Soviet Union directed at strategic nuclear arms limitations. These talks, which are identified as SALT, have been serious and constructive. At least limited agreement is likely to be achieved in the near future.


“As a result of the President’s leadership, fighting has stopped in the Middle East, replaced with discussions moving toward serious negotiations. Every conceivable effort has been made to find a way to negotiate an acceptable solution to the Indochina problem. These have been important first steps from an era of confrontation to an era of negotiation.


“Partnership has always been an important element of foreign policy. Nations have joined together to improve their security where they have a common interest. When we say that partnership is one of the three pillars of our new foreign policy, what is meant is that in the future our friends and allies, as our partners, will be expected to bear a larger share of the burden for their own security. They will be expected, as our partners, to take a more responsible role in international monetary policy and international trade as well. Parallel with this, as they carry a larger share of the burden, it is appropriate that they have a larger voice in determining the course of the partnership in areas relating to their national interests.


“This new course in American foreign policy, involving as it does a readjustment of responsibilities among the free nations of the world, and a readjustment of American commitments around the world, has a substantial influence on the level and kind of military forces this nation will need in the decades ahead. Reduced commitments, in general, can allow for reduced levels of military forces. In deciding whether there can be an absolute reduction or only a relative reduction, we must not forget that realism is essential in military force planning. Our military strength combined with that of our allies must always be adequate to deter war, both nuclear and conventional, and that deterrence must be realistic and responsive to changing world conditions.


“An adequate nuclear deterrent is an absolutely essential requirement of President Nixon’s new foreign policy. Without an adequate nuclear deterrent, any significant contribution to world leadership would be impossible. Negotiations would fail and our partners would desert us. If we survived at all as a nation without an adequate nuclear deterrent, it would not be as a great nation.”


Packard says the U. S. now has an adequate nuclear deterrent, in spite of a Soviet buildup of nuclear weapons, largely due to the MIRV program. “The MIRV program,” he says, “had considerable opposition, but it has improved the capability of the Minuteman and Poseidon missiles.


“We have planned our nuclear forces to be consistent with possible outcomes of the strategic arms limitation talks. We also have taken action to assure that we will have an adequate strategic nuclear deterrent, in case the arms limitation talks fail and the soviet buildup of nuclear weapons continues.


“There are two important actions, within these guidelines, which were taken in preparing the 1973 budget. One was to provide for substantial improvements in the responsiveness and survivability of the command and control of our strategic nuclear forces. This is so urgent, that the President has requested a supplemental appropriation to the fiscal 1972 budget so that this program can be accelerated.”


“During these past three years Secretary Laird and I undertook very extensive studies to make sure that our strategic nuclear forces will provide an adequate nuclear deterrent – not only for today, but also into the foreseeable future. These forces include land-based missiles, submarine-launched missiles, and manned bombers. This is the so-called triad. By maintaining these three different types of forces, each with a very substantial capability, we make it impossible for an enemy to avoid unacceptable damage in retaliation to any conceivable attack he can mount. This ability must be assured for the 1970s, the 1980s and beyond, until and unless some other way is found to eliminate the possibility of nuclear war”


“The FY 1973 budget provides for a strong Navy to counter the rapid Soviet naval buildup, and a strong Air force as well. These forces have smaller numbers of ships and planes than they had in previous years, but they are better ships and better planes, and therefore the forces are more capable. The budget provides for fewer men and women in uniform than in previous years, particularly in the Army. The Army, too, has better weapons. The 1973 budget has a substantial increase in research and development as did the 1972 budget.” And Packard repeats the admonition he has stated before: “I have said many times during these past three years – the realities of the situation indicate that we can have adequate forces for the future with lower levels of military manpower. However, America cannot afford to have both lower force levels and inferior weapons. Military research and development must receive increasing support as we reduce our force levels.”


In answer to critics who feel they have not cut back the Defense Budget far enough, Packard points out that “In real dollars, adjusted for inflation, there has been a substantial reduction – over twenty-five billion dollars. The more important criterion is the effect of the Defense Budget on our economy and our federal resources. In 1968 Defense took 9.5% of this nation’s GNP. The 1973 budget will take only 6.6% — the lowest drain on the economy in twenty years….36 billion dollars less in 1973 than in 1968.”


“This new course President Nixon has charted for us is designed to bring to American and the world a generation of peace. To achieve this goal will require strong leadership along the course. There will be difficult negotiations to resolve areas of conflict without confrontation that could lead to war. There will be difficult negotiations ahead with our friends and allies to get them to accept a fair share of the burden of partnership. Above all, success toward our goal of a generation of peace requires that we maintain strong military forces -–strong to back up the sincerity of negotiations with our enemies; strong to insure the confidence and support of our friends.


“America must lead the nations of this world in the attainment of this exciting goal in the decade of the 1970s. America can take this lead only so long as she remains strong.


“In the words of our President – ‘Strong military defenses are not the enemy of peace. They are the guardian of peace.”



1/11/7, Letter to Packard from Robert W. Bergstrom, President, Union League Club of Chicago, inviting Packard to speak at their annual Presidents Dinner.

3/17/72, Copy of the program for the dinner.

2/18/72, Letter to Packard from Colonel Raymond B. Furlong of the Department of Defense. Col. Furlong says he was delighted at how well Packard’s speech was received. He also encloses a newsclip wherein Packard is quoted as saying “We are at the point now where we could take all American troops out of South Vietnam and the South Vietnamese would be fairly capable of defending themselves.” The Colonel says “Dan, Jerry and I wanted to take this opportunity to suggest that should you be faced with a similar question in the future, you might want to use something like. ’We have provided the South Vietnamese with the time and the equipment that will permit them to become able to defend their country. Their success in this defense now rests upon their own will and determination. As far as US troop levels in Vietnam are concerned, we have made it very clear that UDS troops have not had an active ground combat responsibility since last July and that since that time our men have had the primary mission of defending our own installations and personnel. The President has made it clear that some US troops will remain in Vietnam until all US POWs have been released and the MIA accounted for. Meantime, the President continues to bring Americans home.”


2/22/72, Letter to Packard from Robert Bergstrom, thanking him for speaking at the Club’s dinner.

2/23/72, Letter to Packard from Kenneth Block thanking him for speaking at the Club’s dinner.

3/1/72, Letter to Packard from Roger E. Henn enclosing a “small” check to cover expenses and offering to add more if this is not adequate.

4/11/72, Letter to Packard from Robert Bergstrom, enclosing a copy of the Club’s publication which covered Packard’s speech, plus a pamphlet containing a speech Bergstrom had made in June of 1971.

2/29/72, Copy of a letter from Margaret Paull [Packard’s secretary] to Roger Henn of the Union League Club listing air fare expenses for Mr. and Mrs. Packard of $539.00.

3/6/72, A note to Packard from Roger Henn enclosing a check “for the rest of your expenses”

Undated, A copy of an expense report listing expenses of $300 for Mr. and Mrs. Packard’s visit to Chicago.



Box 3, Folder 15 – General Speeches


February 23, 1972, Improving R&D Management through Prototyping, NSIA Prototyping Seminar, St. Louis, MO


The program for this meeting contains this lead paragraph:  “The services are presently formulating prototype activities and implementation policies. NSIA [National Security Industrial Association] recognizes the appropriateness of this time to exchange ideas and to develop a greater understanding of prototyping within industry and the military services. A day and a half symposium  has been designed to present, question, and thoroughly examine prototyping concepts and policies based upon real experiences. In addition to the program participants listed below, program managers, chief engineers, contracting officers, and RFP writers from the Army, Navy, and Air Force will be invited to attend.” Those “listed below” as speakers include several Generals from the military, and top R&D managers from industry.


2/23/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech.


Packard calls this seminar an “historic conference on prototyping;” saying, “This is the kind of a meeting which should make a real contribution to what has been my favorite subject during these past three years.”


Packard says that “As I joined Mel Laird in the Spring of 1969 to help in the management of the Department of Defense, one of the most serious problems we faced was the unsatisfactory record over the last decade of the Department, the Military Services, and the industry, in the job of the development and procurement of new weapons systems.”


Packard says that during the past three years he “had the opportunity to work on this problem in an extensive and detailed way.” He refers to policy changes which were covered in memorandums, new directives and other written statements; and says that while these have been in the right direction “it will take a great deal more time and effort to correct the disastrous practices which have been developed by this so-called military industrial complex over the past decade.


“Cost over-runs were the most visible symptom of the troubled new weapons development situation, but there were other problems, too. Most programs took far too long from original conception until weapons were delivered to the forces. As a result many weapons, particularly those involving electronics and other fast moving technology, were out of date by the time they were made available.” And he cites an example of seeing “air-to air missiles using 1950 vintage vacuum tube circuitry – still in the forces in 1970.”


In addition to high cost and long development time, Packard says “many of the new devices did not have the reliability that is needed for military use.”


“”I believe we have learned a great deal during the past three years in understanding the causes of these difficulties. We were able to take a number of specific steps which point the way to major improvement. As I have said many times, however, only if the people in the Defense Department and in the Services find new and better ways to work with industry will these serious deficiencies be corrected. Major changes are absolutely necessary by both industry and the government if we are to have the military capability adequate for the future security of America and the free world.” And Packard expresses the hope that the audience will “address the subject as one which can and must be a big step forward in making major changes in this development and procurement business.”


“One of the major factors in cost over-runs has been irresponsible low estimates at the beginning of a program. ‘Buy-ins’ by contractors has been a big element of this irresponsibility. Another contributing factor has been the attempt to price out a full program before the new weapon is developed.” Packard refers to tools, such as “parametric costing” which “can help in making reasonably accurate cost estimates of a new product before it is developed, but apparently those in authority preferred to rely on wishful thinking. The record is nothing anyone can be proud of.”


Packard describes how prototyping “can help in this matter because this approach will allow a new weapon development to be undertaken without having to make a commitment to production or to use in the forces before the development is complete.”


“…projecting the program cost including the production cost can be delayed until the prototype is complete and tested. With a hardware model, better cost estimates are possible and there will be much less excuse for gross errors in projecting a program cost.


“Buy-ins can also be reduced with the prototype approach if the people in the Defense Department have the guts to go to sole source negotiated contracts with the firm that demonstrates it can do the job by producing a prototype which is proven by testing.


“These false cost estimates and ‘buy-ins’ are not cost overruns that necessarily represent real waste, but they insure that a program will look like money has been wasted. They are in the nature of conspicuous waste. They give the ‘Proxmires’ and the press the opportunity to make you people look stupid. I can assure you that you will continue to look stupid until and unless you correct this situation of absurdly low cost estimates and buy-ins.


In addition to this conspicuous waste, Packard says “There has been real waste of both time and money in almost every program in which production was started before development and testing was complete – and that includes almost every program.


“Engineering changes that are made on the production line are costly and wasteful. They generate waste, real waste, as you all know, right down through the sub-contract structure.


“Hundreds of millions of dollars have been wasted buying spare parts before the final design is settled and before the real requirements for spares have been confirmed.” Packard refers to a recent finding by the GAO that said over a hundred million dollars had been wasted on spares on one program alone. Packard says he knows the GAO was right.”


“It will be helpful to consider the prototype approach in two separate phases, each of which can serve to correct some of the serious failings we have had in this business. The advanced development prototype is one kind of a prototype program. The production prototype is another kind of a prototype program. Each has its place – each can contribute to a better job in the future.


“The advanced development prototype can serve to verify and reduce the technology to hardware…[It] should be administered whenever possible to provide alternate choices for the force requirement. In the past alternate choices for a force requirement have been evaluated by paper studies, system analysis procedures, and they have been influenced by the divisive forces between the Services and often within a Service.


“By the time the fighting is over and a particular program is selected, the whole issue is set in concrete and can hardly be changed by an act of Congress. This process has often resulted in a poor decision with no possibility that it can be corrected later.


“If the decision as to which way to go can be kept open until several alternate routes have been evaluated by building and testing prototypes, I am sure we will have better decisions on the question of what weapons to develop for our future forces.


“Once an advanced development prototype has been selected as the basis for a major program there will be much yet to be done in engineering before a commitment to production is made. Here is the place for more reliance on production prototypes. These should be built to a production design on production tooling and with production methods. It is only when you in government and you in industry face up to the fact that production prototypes must be built and tested before major investment in production, before deciding on and ordering spares, before taking actions for training and deployment, that you will solve the problem that has been plaguing you.


“I know you will claim that waiting for the production prototype to be tested before taking corollary actions on a major program will result in delays. Let me emphasize, during the three years I spent in the Pentagon I found hardly a program that was not delayed anyway.” Packard gives an example he recently saw at an air field “…where there were hundreds of students and instructors and extensive investments to train pilots for C-5As. They had three C-5As all right, but none had engines, and none could fly….Judicious use of prototypes can help avoid such stupid performance in the future.


“The third serious problem that troubles all of our recent major programs is reliability. Numerous directives, specifications, and other requirements have been placed on all major development programs to attempt to improve the reliability of new weapons. Very little improvement, if any, has come from this effort and very large sums of money have been spent.


“Reliability cannot be achieved by adhering to detailed specifications. Reliability cannot be achieved by formula or by analysts. Some of these may help to some extent, but there is only one road to reliability. Build it, test it and fix the things that go wrong. Repeat the process until the desired reliability is achieved. It is a feedback process and there is no other way. Prototypes are an important key to this procedure.”


“A few months ago at a meeting of military project managers, someone objected to extensive testing because it would delay the program. He complained that testing showed up things that needed to be fixed and it took time to fix them, and this would delay the IOC. Unless we get rid of that kind of thinking there will be no hope.


“Prototyping must be backed with testing, and schedules must not be fixed until we have a hardware model that meets the requirement of the job and which has demonstrated reliability.”


“Let me repeat what I said at the beginning. I believe we have made real and important progress in improving the management of the development and production of new weapons during these last three years. What has been done is only a beginning – your critics are far from satisfied.


“Senator Stennis, who is one of your best and most powerful friends in the Senate, has told me personally he is not satisfied with what has been done. He expects better performance in the future and if better performance is not forthcoming, he will find it harder and harder to defend your cause in the Congress.


“Even such a consistent advocate of strong defense as Senator Goldwater has accused me of throwing up my hands and saying the whole thing is hopeless. I will admit there have been times during these past three years when I felt that way, but I want to assure you here, and every one else, I did not leave that Department for any disillusionment I might have had from time to time on this, or any other subject. I am, in many ways, sorry my personal circumstances were such that I could not stay longer.


“I am, in fact, very encouraged by the great progress we made during these past three years. The most encouraging fact of all is that the majority of people in the Department, industry, and in the Congress, seemed to agree with what we did and gave me excellent support the entire time I was in the Pentagon.


“I have often said that the new policies we established, and the improvements we tried to make, will be effective only to the extent they are accepted and implemented by people throughout the Department and throughout industry. I also recognized that it would take considerable time for these new policies to become effective, even if they are correct and proper.


“I am especially pleased that you are holding this conference for it is at this level that the real improvement must come. You people in the Department of Defense and in the Services, who are responsible for making decisions and working with your counterparts in industry on specific programs and specific projects, are the ones – in fact, the only ones who can bring about the improvement we must have.


“Let me make this point very clear. We can convert our critics in only one way – by doing a better job. That is the sole purpose of the prototype approach – the opportunity to demonstrate that you know what you are doing before vast sums of money are committed to a new major program.


“I believe the prototype approach can contribute to better thinking, better habits, if you will, on the entire spectrum of Defense contracting.


“In conclusion, let me say I am delighted to see such a fine representation here, The defense department – the Military Services – and Defense industry – have an awesome responsibility,. It is your responsibility to provide the weapons this country needs to assure realistic capability to deter war for the future. It is your responsibility to provide these weapons with resources which will not weaken our economy, for in today’s world economic strength is a most important adjunct to military strength.


“American industry has been the most productive and the most innovative of any industry in the world. American industry has been the arsenal of democracy and the savior of the free world on at least five separate occasions in our history, going clear back to the 19th Century.


“America looks to the Defense industry and the Defense Department to live up to this great tradition of service to the nation. I am confident enough to say we have steered these great resources back on the right track during these past three years. I know each of you here at this conference will do your part to keep this great talent of our country on the right track in the future Good luck in this great endeavor.”



2/23/72, Copy of the Seminar program

2/23/72, Copy of the list of speakers at the Seminar

1/21/72, Copy of NSIA Announcement for the Seminar.

1/11/72, Letter to Packard from Brent A. Hardesty, Program Chairman for the Seminar, discussing topic details.

1/31/72, Letter to Packard from Stouffer’s hotel confirming reservation

2/2/72, Letter to Packard from Brent Hardesty, NSIA Program Chairman, enclosing a draft copy of the keynote speech to be given by Ed Ball. Also enclosed is a copy of an invitation to Packard’s replacement as Deputy Secretary of Defense, Kenneth Rush.

2/8/72, Copy of letter to Brent Hardesty from Julian Levine saying Deputy Secretary of Defense Designate Rush will not be able to attend.

2/11/72, Copy of letter to Packard from Sanford N. McDonnell, President McDonnell Douglas, saying he is looking forward to hearing Packard’s talk.

3/1/72, Letter from Secretary of Defense, Melvin Laird, saying he had read, “with pleasure” Packard’s talk.

3/2/72, Letter to Packard from J. M. Lyle of NSIA, thanking him for his participation in the Prototyping Seminar, and confirming details for the March 9th Award Dinner where NSIA will present Packard with the Forrestal Award

3/6/72, Letter to Packard from Investment Banker W. N. Fangio saying he agrees with Packard’s comments

3/6/72, Copy of an article in the Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine covering Packard’s speech

4/18/72, Letter to Packard from W. H. Johnston, complimenting Packard on the address.

4/27/72, Letter to Packard from V/Adm. Eli T. Reich, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, asking for permission to print Packard’s speech in an upcoming Journal.

4/28/72, Note to Margaret Paull from Brent Hardesty thanking her for her help.

4/28/72, Letter to Packard from Brent Hardesty complimenting him on his address. Photos enclosed. .[see Packard photo file, folder, HP 1970-1979]

5/2/72, Copy of letter to Hardesty from Packard thanking him for the photos5/3/72, Copy of letter from Packard to V/Adm. Eli Reich giving permission to use his speech

2/23/72, Copy of speech given by David S. Lewis, Chairman of the Board and CEO, General Dynamics Corp.

Undated, Copy of speech titled, Through Prototyping – speaker not identified

Undated, Copies of overhead slides, titled, Skunk Works Projects.




Box 3, Folder 16 – General speeches


February 29, 1972, Accepting Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce Distinguished Citizen Award


2/29/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s comments, with handwritten notes by him


“Lu and I want to thank you for the warm and friendly welcome home from Washington. [The following five italicized paragraphs were handwritten by Packard on the back of the first page of the text of his speech. From his editorial marks it appears he intended to insert these comments at this point.]


“It was [a] great satisfaction to serve in President Nixon’s administration during these past three years.


“I can say that for many reasons , but particularly because I had the opportunity to participate in a number of areas in which great progress was made.


“In the Department [we formed?] new and better policies for the development and procurement of weapons – More defense for the dollars provided by taxpayers.


“Major reductions in the Defense Budget in its demands on our economy, [going] from 9.5% of GNP in 1968 to 6.5% of GNP in 1973 – 36 billion dollars less drain on federal resources – lowest in percent of GNP in over 20 years.


“Opportunity to participate in the development of President Nixon’s new foreign policy toward a Generation of Peace – from [an] era of confrontation to [an era] of negotiation.”


“You do me a great and undeserved honor to place me in the company of the nine persons previously named Distinguished citizens of the Palo Alto chamber of Commerce. And tonight, in these brief remarks, I’d like to recall some words of one of those past recipients of the award, the late President Herbert Hoover.


“Fifty years ago Mr. Hoover published a slim little volume titled American Individualism. In it was a sentence which should be written on these walls tonight:


‘We cannot ever afford,’ said Herbert Hoover, ‘to rest at ease in the comfortable assumption that right ideas always prevail by some virtue of their own.’


‘There have been periods of centuries,’ Mr. Hoover wrote, ‘when the world slumped back toward darkness merely because great masses of men became impregnated with wrong ideas…’


“Surely,” Packard says, “he must have had in mind the great power of government propaganda, which had been so evident on both sides during World War I. And certainly all of us, as individual American citizens, must continue to evaluate critically the official explanations of any public authority.


“But there is another sort of propaganda about which I presently am even more concerned: Call it the anti-government line, or – if you dare to be as vague as the peddlers of the line – call it ‘anti Establishment.’


“Probably most of the businessmen and industrialists in this audience have been targets of such propaganda attacks. You have been told that your profits are excessive and your products shoddy. If you engage in commercial operations beyond the borders of this country, you are automatically labeled ‘imperialists.’


“None of you have received the great honor from these anti-American propagandists and hate mongers that I have. If there are mad bombers in this country, they are probably in front of Rickey’s tonight.


“There is, of course, more noise than substance in such charges, but the cumulative effect of their constant repetition can be very persuasive.


“There is an old adage which says ‘For evil to triumph, good men need only do nothing.” This can also be stated in this way – For evil ideas to prevail, good men need only to remain silent.”


“Fortunately, good men and women of the Stanford community did not remain silent, and the purveyors of evil ideas have been exposed at the University.

“Unfortunately, some of these purveyors of evil ideas have moved into your high schools and it is high time for at least a few good men and women in Palo Alto to speak out.


“And nowhere, during the past three years, have the assaults been more vicious and less deserved than in the campaigns against the military profession. The fate of the ROTC and the recruiting officers on many of our most prestigious university campuses, including Stanford, is one unfortunate result of this anti-military campaign.


“Because I’ve had the opportunity, over the past three years, to become acquainted with a good many professional soldiers, I’d like to use my remaining time to speak out on their behalf.


“I’ll start at the top with the Joint chiefs of Staff. They are not only outstanding American citizens – professionals of the highest ability – but at the same time knowledgeable about, and sensitive to, the problems of our society.


“As I worked with the men and women in the Defense Department over these three years, I became greatly impressed with the high caliber of people who serve their nation in defense. I worked closely with the Joint Chiefs, the other top officers in each Service, and I had many occasions to visit with men and women in units large and small all over the world. You will find no more capable, dedicated, fine American men and women in any business organization, any city or county government, and school or University, than you will find in American military units and bases wherever they may be. This country can be proud of the military people who provide its security. It has been especially disturbing to me to witness the bitter, often vicious, criticism of the military in the press, on TV, in many of our more liberal universities, and even by Congressmen – who, of all people, should know better. I can understand disillusionment with Vietnam policy going back to 1966 or so, but the military does not deserve criticism for the policy – it was dictated and completely directed from 1964 on by the civilians in the Administration and in the Department at that time. The officers and servicemen and women in the Army, the Navy, the Air force, and Marines simply did what they were asked to do. They were asked to do an almost impossible job, and they did it well.


We asked our military people in the spring of 1969 to reorient the emphasis to Vietnamization – to help the South Vietnamese develop their own defense capability so American forces could come home. The Vietnamization policy has been successful beyond everyone’s expectation – most of our forces, over 400,000 have been brought home – South Vietnam can now defend itself from the Communist invaders without help from American forces. When the emotion on this issue dies down this will be recognized as a great accomplishment by American military people.


“One point that is often overlooked is that the role of our military services has not been just to defend America. It has also been to develop America. One of the earliest examples of this is the part the Army played in the western movement in American history – in winning of the West.


“One of the most exciting things I was able to do while I was in the pentagon was to encourage a renewal of involvement by military people in attacking some of the serious social problems of America. Early in 1969 Secretary Laird and I set forth a statement of Human Goals for the Defense Department. These goals were stated as follows:


“To attract to the defense service people with ability, dedication, and capacity for growth;


“To provide opportunity for every one, military and civilian, to rise to as high a level of responsibility as his talent and diligence will take him;


”To make military and civilian service in the Department of defense a model of equal opportunity for all regardless of race or creed or national origin, and to hold those who do business with the Department to full compliance with the policy of equal employment opportunity;


“To help each serviceman at the end of his service in his adjustment to civilian life; and to contribute to the improvement of our society, including its disadvantaged members, by greater utilization of our human and physical resources while maintaining full effectiveness in the performance of our primary mission.


“Let me cite the results of just two examples of the application of these Human Goals to defense affairs.


“We established a Domestic Action Program to provide a substantial portion of jobs for disadvantaged [youths]. In 1971 the Department hired 46,000 young people, 76% of whom were disadvantaged youths.


“In addition, we asked every military base and every military activity in the country to use their resources to support educational, recreational, and cultural programs for disadvantaged youths. Over 2.4 million young people participated in these programs across the country last year. In 1969, the year I came to the Department, there were only 250,000 young people involved. I am kind of proud that ten times as may youngsters had a better summer in 1971 than in 1969 because of what we could do in the Defense Department. This was possible only because the professional military people made the program work.


“People all over the country including you people in Palo Alto are being exposed to a largely distorted story about many aspects of your government – in particular about the military – about the fine men and women in the Defense Department who make it possible for you to sleep safely and soundly in your homes, and who make other important contributions to the quality of life in America, your country. Don’t let them down,


“Mrs. Packard and I are pleased to be back in this great community, and I am deeply grateful for this award. Thank you very much.”


3/8/72, Pages from the Congressional Record, placed there by Rep. Charles Gubser, containing the prepared text of Packard’s comments

1/20/72, Letter to Packard from Richard B. Kluzek of the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, discussing the Award ceremony.

2/7/72, Letter to Packard from Wayne Miller saying he will be unable to attend the award dinner, but congratulating Packard for the fine job in Washington.

2/14/72, Letter to Packard from Lyle M. Nelson saying he will be unable to attend the award dinner, but saying he feels Packard has done a great job for the community and for Stanford.

2/18/72, Letter to Packard from J. M. Pettit sending regrets.

2/22/72, Letter to Packard from William E. Kratt, saying he cannot make the award dinner, but adding that he is grateful for Packard’s “friendship and kindnesses” in the past.

3/1/72,   Handwritten note from Lee and Evelyn Webel saying “our country is very fortunate to have a citizen like you.”

3/2/72, Letter to Packard from Kathleen and Merrill Vanderpool  saying they will be unable to attend the dinner.

3/2/72, Letter form Oleg Sherby and G. M. Pound, Stanford Professors, saying they concur with his remarks at the PACC dinner, and adding that they agree with the actions taken against some of the hate mongers at Stanford

3/3/72, Copy of letter from Packard to James Zurcher, Palo Alto Chief of Police, thanking members of the Police Department for conducting Lu and he to Rickey’s, and for their “control of events”

3/13/72, Letter to Margaret Paull from Ralph Rogers, United California Bank, thanking her for her assistance in preparations for the award dinner

2/2/72, Copy of a clipping from the Stanford Daily with an article about the bomb placed at Professor Dornbusch’s house.

2/10/72, Copy of large “ad” from the Stanford Daily signed by many members of the Academic Council, denouncing the personal attacks on members of the Advisory Board, and offering a reward for apprehension of the those responsible for placing a bomb at a Professor Sandy Dornbusch’s house.

2/21/72, Complete copy of the “newspaper” Pamoja Venceremos, discussing events as they see them.

3/1/72, Copy of clipping from the San Jose Mercury covering events at the award dinner.

3/1/72, Copy of page from the Stanford Daily describing events at the dinner, with disruptions both inside and outside Rickeys

3/3/72, Copy of newsclip from the Stanford Daily containing an anti-Packard article written by a student, Don Zweig.. Also attached is a copy of a typewritten letter to the editor from an Al Kirkman (?) effectively rebutting Zweig



Box 3, Folder 17 – General Speeches


March 6, 1972, Toward a Generation of Peace – Bohemian Club


Packard was newly returned from his assignment with the Department of Defense.


3/6/72, Packard’s  notes  which are handwritten on 3×5” cards and are brief and in outline form


Packard says he worked very closely with the President on foreign policy toward a generation of peace.


“1968 – a major turning point: Viet Nam a symbol, but not only cause  – burning in streets, universities in shambles, 549,000 in Viet Nam &n no plan


“Real Cause

Two decades of  [?]

US 9.5% of GNP

UK 5.6%, West Germany 2.9%, Japan 1%

USSR about the same as US and continues


“US share of GNP:

40% in 1950, Japan 1.5%

30% in 1970, Japan 6.2%


“US Reserves

50% in 1950 – 10% in 1970

“Vast sums for aid, inflation at home


”Real progress from era of confrontation to era of negotiation

Reduced defense, from 9.5% of GNP to 6.5%


“Negotiations: SALT, Seabeds, Berlin, China



More NATO support



Viet Nam


“Two courses for Viet Nam




“South Viet Nam can now defend itself


“Will not turn South Viet Nam over to criminals


“President Nixon has provided great leadership. I left for personal reasons, I am going to do whatever I can to keep him in office.


Undated, note to Packard from Margaret Paull saying the Bohemian Club would like him to confirm speaking date




Box 3, Folder 18 – General speeches


March 9, 1972,  Acceptance Speech, James Forrestal Memorial Award, NSIA, Washington D.C.


3/9/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech with some  handwritten notations by Packard.


Saying that he had given considerable thought as to what he might say and he ticks off several subjects that crossed his mind: the vast buildup of the Soviet Union, the FY-73 budget, the virtues of the military-industrial complex – but sets these aside as things he has talked about many times.


Going on with his review of possible subjects he, rather tongue in cheek, says he “could tell you how the defense industries always complete their jobs on time — meet the specs – and control their costs….


“Or, I could talk about the marvelous spirit of cooperation among the Services – how the Army  was always willing to give up some more men so the Air Force could have more planes and the Navy more ships.”  Continuing in this vein with similar comments he gets to the more serious comments he wants to make.


He recalls that “National Defense was not in high repute while I was in the Pentagon….In many respects these were traumatic years for one who has faith in the future of his country. They were traumatic when some members of Congress, particularly in the Senate, took great delight in seizing on any fact or figure which could be used…to discredit the military and all those who supported the Defense Department.


“They were traumatic when scientists used their reputations gained in unrelated fields to influence legislation to stultify national defense programs – particularly the all-important strategic nuclear programs upon which the security, in fact the very survival, of our country depends.


“They were traumatic when former friends in distinguished universities supported ideologies contrary to the democratic concepts of this great nation.


“They were traumatic when distinguished members of the news media were, in their reporting, sometimes more favorable to Hanoi, or to Russia, or even toward India than to their own country.


“This great nation of ours was indeed in a state of shock in 1968 and in the spring of 1969 when I came to Washington. There was rioting and burning in the streets. Some of our great universities were in shambles. Inflation was rampant and had already eaten away at the economic progress of the previous decade. We had 540,000 men and women in Vietnam, and no plan to bring them home – no course to end U.S. involvement in Indochina other than unconditional surrender at the negotiating table in Paris.”


Having had the time for some reflection on the events of this era, Packard says “…it has become evident to me there is nothing so unusual about this period if it is viewed in the long course of history. Our great country had, to a large degree, lost its commitment to a common goal – to a unifying purpose that is so necessary to keep people working together, whether it be in small organizations within the society, or whether it be as a nation.” Without this “common goal”, Packard says “nations decline, decay and eventual death starts….It makes no difference that we had the most powerful military establishment in the history of the world…or the  largest and most efficient research and development capability. It is not what a nation is, but what it wants to be that determines its future.”


Packard says he has been very troubled by the divisive nature of the debate as to what our nation’s future goals should be. He sees a “serious lack of understanding of what kind of goals will sustain the vitality of our country in the future. Senator Fulbright is pushing for a fortress Arkansas policy for our future foreign policy. Senator church would prefer that it be fortress Idaho. I can think of no better way to assure the demise of America to the status of a second rate world power by the decade of the 1980s than to follow this line of thinking.


“Fortunately, new and exciting goals for America have been established during these past three years under the leadership of President Nixon. I am very proud to have had at least some small part in helping to develop this new and exciting course for our future foreign policy. This new direction has already excited the imagination of the American people, and set the stage for the commitment and purpose which is so necessary if our country is to maintain its position of world leadership into the decade of the 1980s and beyond.”


“There is no need to defend the President’s leadership during these three years. Just look at the facts. Peaceful and legal protest has largely replaced rioting and burning in the streets. The great universities and colleges are back in the business of education. More than 400,000 of our servicemen and women have been brought home from Vietnam. U.S. casualties have been reduced nearly a hundred-fold. Our military units that remain are all but out of ground combat, and substantial reductions have been made in air combat activity. The South Vietnamese are now able to defend their country from the Communist invaders, and North Vietnam has no hope whatever of a military victory.


“American self confidence at home and American leadership abroad are again on a rising course.”


“Whether American will move forward to the challenge of leadership in the decades ahead will depend on what the people of our great nation perceive their role to be….it is well to remember that the desires and commitments of the American people, and the institutions to which they belong will determine the eventual course and outline of history.


Packard says the Defense Department reflects the attitude of the nation. If the nation is not united in its goals then the Defense Department will not be strong and effective.


“When we came to the Department in 1969, people were not working together effectively. James Forrestal, when he became the first Secretary of Defense, tackled a momentous job. He had the great vision that our military strength would be enhanced under a unified Department.


“However, unification is easier said than done. There are strong diverse forces in and around the Department of Defense. It is hard work to keep them headed in a common direction in times of peace. When Secretary Laird and I took on this job in 1969, that was our most important goal. I believe we succeeded to some degree in bringing these diverse forces more nearly together.”


Packard says “This country can be proud of the military people who provide its security. It has been especially disturbing to me to witness the bitter, often vicious, criticism of the military in the press, on TV, in many of our more liberal universities, and even by some elected public officials – who, of all people, should know better. I can understand disillusionment with Vietnam policy going back to 1966 or so, but the military does not deserve criticism for the policy – it was dictated and completely directed from the very beginning by the civilians in the Administration and in the Department at that time. The officers and other servicemen and women in the Army, the Navy, the Air Force and Marines simply did what they were asked to do. They were asked to do an almost impossible job, and they did it well.”


“The Department’s first and foremost commitment is to the security, the strength, and the world leadership of the United States. This commitment comes before any well-intentioned individual loyalty to the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, or the Marines.”


“As I indicated earlier, while some progress has been made, there are still those – both in the Defense Department, and in industry – who have not accepted the larger commitment.


“Within the Defense Department, for example, there continues to be a degree of competition between the Services – and frequently between parts of a Service – that is unacceptable because it is inconsistent with the common commitment. Some competition is healthy, but not when it begins to affect such major matters as funding, missions, and roles. Jealousies and in-fighting will only serve to drain our nation’s energies.


“In the same vein, I am not much impressed by what I have seen in the attitudes of some of our great corporations in the so-called military industrial complex. You are, of course, aware of the problems we have had with the C-5A, the Mark 48, and other programs which have had much publicity. In many ways, the problems are deeper than they appear to be.


“I visited one plant last year that was running a year behind its project schedule. After a couple of hours it was apparent the company knew on the day it signed the contract it would be at least a year off schedule. I asked the manager why he offered to do the job in one year less than was possible. The essence of his reply was – yes, we knew we could not meet the terms of the contract, but there was no way to get the contract if we told the truth.


“One serious impediment to good defense management is that defense contractors can appeal directly to the Congress. On one occasion, about two years ago, a company tried to reverse a decision I had made by appealing to one of our Congressional committees. The company’s recommendation was purely one of self-interest and it was wrong. The company knew it, and I knew it, and so I called the management of the company and told them so.


“What is the solution? We are going to have to stop this problem of people playing games with each other. Games that will destroy us, if we do not bring them to a halt.


“Let’s take the case of the F-14. The only sensible course is to hold the contractor [see also Undated UP news release at end of the text of this speech which names Grumman as the contractor in question]  to his contract. Although some companies may be forced to suffer financially because of this concept, it will not be a major disaster to the country. It will be a very major disaster to the country if we cannot get the military industrial complex to play the game straight. Until and unless we can stop this attitude, we are going to continue to waste the taxpayer’s dollars – [and] get less defense for the dollars we spend.


“Quite simply. It means the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and the Marines must put the welfare of America ahead of the welfare of their respective Service, in peacetime as well as in war. It means the great industrial corporations that forge the seams of our military strength must put the long term gains of America ahead of the short term gains of their respective organizations. It means that Congress should address America’ security policy, stay out of day-to-day administrative problems, and discourage game-playing between the Services and the business community.”


“The critics will say – yes, we agree, but power does not necessarily mean military power. There is economic power, the power of moral persuasion, the power of ideas – power beyond that which comes from the barrel of a gun.


“We all want to believe this, but the record is not all that persuasive. If there is a case to be made, it is that a united commitment, whether or not backed with military force, is the most commanding factor available to influence the course of human events.


“Only if all of us – in Congress, in the Administration, and in the private sector – rise above our  personal biases and our personal interests, will the future course of America and the well-being of the world be secure.


“Only if all of us – particularly those who are charged with, or who have the opportunity for leadership -–wipe this blurring film of self-interest from our eyes, will we be able to see the sharply defined images of opportunity and accomplishment that await us in the future.


“I have had the opportunity to get acquainted with many fine people in the Services, in the Department , in industry, and in the Congress during my three years in Washington. I know from first-hand experience that you who shoulder the responsibility for the defense of our country have the desire and the ability to do the best possible job. I know we made great progress in working together better. I know that you will carry on with your efforts of working together. As you do, you will demonstrate convincingly to the critics that you have the welfare of the country as your first priority  — and that you deserve their wholehearted support and confidence.


“It has been a great privilege for me to be with you tonight and a great honor to receive the Forrestal Award. Thank you very much.”


3/9/72, Printed program for the NSIA Forrestal Memorial Award Dinner.

12/17/71, Copy of a letter from Packard to Admiral J. M. Lyle saying he would be honored to accept the 1971 Forrestal Memorial Award

12/20/71, Copy of NSIA press release announcing that Packard will be the recipient of the 1971 James Forrestal Award

12/29/71, Letter to Packard from Edwin H. Gott congratulating him on being named the recipient of the 1971 Forrestal Award

1/4/72, Letter to Packard from Robert B. Chapman III, Chairman of the NSIA Forrestal Award Committee, congratulating Packard and offering assistance in preparing his address.

1/7/72, Letter to Robert B. Chapman III from Packard thanking him for his note of 1/4/72

1/10/72, Letter to Packard from J. M. Lyle enclosing [not here] the announcement of the Award to NSIA members

1/21/72, Letter to Margaret M. Paull [Packard’s secretary] enclosing information about the award dinner and about NSIA

1/28/72, Letter to Packard from Mansfield Sprague, VP AMF Co., saying he would like to meet with Packard for a half hour or so on 3/9 or 3/10 to discuss how defense procurement might be improved.

2/2/72,  Copy of letter to J. M. Lyle from Louris Norstad, Chairman of the Board, Owens Corning Fiberglass Corp., saying he will be unable to attend the Award Dinner for Packard.

2/8/72, Letter to Margaret Paull from J. M. Lyle inviting her to the Award Dinner.

2/18/72, Letter to Packard from Charles F. Adams, Chairman of the Board, Raytheon Co.,

saying “If ever a man deserved this award to the full it is you…Your grasp of the problems involved, your dedication in the job, and the wisdom of your judgments evoked the admiration of all concerned. We already have reason to miss you.”

2/25/72, Letter to Packard from Spencer J. Schedler,  Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, saying he will not be able to attend the Award Dinner, but offering his congratulations

2/29/72, Letter to Packard from Under Secretary of Transportation James M. Beggs, sending regrets and congratulations

3/2/72, Letter to Packard from J. M. Lyle discussing details of the forthcoming dinner and offering congratulations on Packard’s participation at the NSIA Prototyping Seminar on Feb. 23, 1972; [see coverage of this speech above]

3/3/72, Copy of letter from Packard to Mel Laird, Secretary of Defense, sending an advance copy of the speech he plans to give at the Forrestal Award Dinner, asking for any comments Laird may have

3/10/72, Letter to Packard from Donald B. Rice, Assistant Director, Office of Management and Budget saying he had attended the dinner and congratulating Packard on the Award, and saying his speech was a “masterpiece”

3/10/72, Handwritten letter to Packard from W. F. “Red” Raborn, apologizing “for interrupting your dinner with some of my personal views on how to improve the Defense Department”

3/10/72, Letter to Packard from J. M. Lyle thanking him for “a memorable evening,” and saying the NSIA has received “a flood of enthusiastic approval from our members and guests, and many requests for copies”

3/12/72, Letter to Packard from Peter N. Sherrill,  requesting a copy of Packard’s address

3/23/72, Letter to Packard from Harvey M. Sapolsky, University of Michigan, asking for a copy of his speech

3/28/72, Letter to Packard from Samuel A. Scharff, asking for a copy of his speech

4/20/72, Letter to Packard from F. A. Long, Cornell University, asking for a copy of his speech

4/26/72, Letter to Packard from J. M. Lyle inviting Packard to attend a ceremony presenting a bust of James Forrestal to the government for the new James Forrestal Building in Washington.

4/29/72, Copy of letter to J. M. Lyle saying he will be unable to attend the presentation of the bust of Forrestal

6/29/72, Letter from Richard L. Garvin asking for a copy of Packard’s Forrestal Award speech

Undated UP news release, covers Packard’s Forrestal speech and adds this comment, :  “Packard had special criticism for Grumman Aerospace Corp., which says it will not honor future Navy options to order more F 14 fighters unless the contract is rewritten to provide more money.” UP adds this quote from Packard’s speech: “The only sensible course is to hold the contractor to his contract. Although some companies may be forced to suffer financially because of this concept, it will not be a major disaster to the country It will be a very major disaster to the country if we cannot get the military industrial complex to play game straight.”

3/10/72, Clipping from Washing D. C. Evening Star, covering the speech

Dec./Jan. Issue of NSIA News covering the Forrestal Award with Biographical information about Packard

Mar./April Issue of NSIA News which includes some photos of the Award ceremony and background on the Award itself


1/22/73, Letter to Packard from J. M. Lyle inviting Packard to the Forrestal Award Dinner on March 15, 1973, where the 1972 Award will be given to James S. McDonnell

2/5/73, Copy of letter from Packard to J. M. Lyle sending regrets



Box 3, Folder 19 – General Speeches


March 13, 1972, Fremont Republican Assembly, Fremont CA


3/13/72, There are two almost identical drafts of a speech for Packard to use in Fremont. However, Packard has attached a note to one saying “I did not use this last night, but instead talked off the cuff.” The draft doesn’t sound like a typical Packard speech, and perhaps was written by a staff person at HP. Since there was no transcript of what he actually said, the description of his comments below is based on a report in the News-Register newspaper.


3/14/72,  Article in Tri-City newspaper News-Register covered Packard’s speech and the following is based on their article.


Packard referred to this as his “first political speech ever made,” adding that “There are a few facts about politics which I am gradually learning, and one of them is that you people in this community have a very big political wallop.”


The newspaper  says “Packard took issue with reports that the President may have an easy time winning re-election. He labeled California as a key state in Nixon’s bid for a second term”


The newspaper says “Packard itemized what he viewed as the achievements of the Nixon administration’s four years in  power. Packard said President Nixon has made the world safer and the United States more secure through a combination of ‘negotiation, partnership and strength.’


Packard predicted, the article says, that the important Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) now underway between the U. S. and Russia will soon reach a preliminary agreement.


Packard clarified, the paper reports, that a prime objective in the talks has been to maintain a ‘realistic and effective nuclear deterrent.’


On the policy of strength, the paper quotes Packard saying “It is not possible to negotiate with communist nations except from a position of strength…The ABM system has been a strong bargaining card in the SALT talks. If the MIRV [Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicle] program had [not]been adopted we would not have a creditable nuclear deterrent today.”


On partnership, the paper says Packard said Vietnamization has allowed 400,000 United States military personnel to return home; and they quote Packard as saying the North Vietnamese have been unsuccessful because “they will stop talking only if the president agrees to turn South Vietnam over to them.”


The paper says Packard also said that defense spending amounted to 9.5 percent of gross national product in 1968, compared to 6.5 percent in 1972.


2/16/72, Note to Packard from Dick Arey saying that “the Fremont Republican Assembly would be honored to sponsor a talk by you in March,” and discussing scheduling.

3/6/72, Clipping from the Fremont News-Register speaking of Packard’s forthcoming talk to the Fremont Republican Assembly”

3/6/72, Copy of a letter from Packard to Mr. and Mrs. Warren Townsend inviting them to dinner to discuss campaign plans.

3/15/72, Copy of a letter to Ralph Fairchild, Editor, The Argus newspaper correcting their quote of Packard saying Senator Henry Jackson tried to stop the ABM system. Packard says he actually said “the Democratic Senators who are candidates with the exception of Senator Jackson tried to stop the ABM and the MIRV programs”

3/15/72, Letter to Packard from Kenneth Castle of the Argus enclosing a clipping correcting the statement

Undated Two papers of notes on background information about the California Republican Assembly and the Fremont area.



Box 3, Folder 20 – General Speeches


March 16, 1972, Accepting the Federal City Club’s Award for Very Distinguished Public Service, Washington D.C.


3/16/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech with notations by him


Packard draws on the writings of Walter Lippman and Plato to the effect that “we human beings frequently act not upon substance but upon shadow, not on the basis of things as they really are, but on the basis of …‘The pictures in our heads.’


“Mr. Lippman spoke further of ‘The triangular relationship between the scene of action, the human picture of that scene and the Human response to that picture working itself out upon the scene of action.’


“What Walter Lippman visualized with his triangular image, is that when the pictures in our heads become distorted, those distortions  — because we act on them – also infect the reality of the situation. Thus when distortions occur it is important not to waste time wasting blame, but to correct them as quickly as possible before they multiply.


“And that is partly what I shall attempt to do this evening,. When I came to Washington, the military increasingly was being portrayed as incompetent and uncontrollable, inefficient and wasteful. Those with an anti-military disposition delighted in quoting a great former general, Dwight Eisenhower, usually out of context, on the dangers of the so-called ‘military-industrial complex’. We heard time and again that our historic tradition of civilian supremacy was in grave jeopardy.”


With this background Packard says he wants to review some subjects that fell within his area of responsibility as Deputy Secretary of Defense – starting with management.

“Many people have asked did I enjoy the job, and as many of you know, my answer to that question was I found it very interesting. It was difficult in the sense that there was a great deal to be done, and you felt a  considerable sense of responsibility on your shoulders – which in fact there was.”


Packard says, in terms of day-to-day management there was not much difference from management in business – except with the magnitude of the problems and the sums involved. “The same basic management principles that work well in a business organization seemed to work well in the Defense Department, and there is, of course, no reason why they shouldn’t. One of the things I liked best about the job was working with the military. You cannot help but be very impressed with the great dedication of all of the men and women in uniform – and there is something kind of impressive about military discipline. When you are in the chain of command, as I was, and you tell somebody to get something done, it gets done and it gets done well.


“The military discipline showed up most effectively and in a most important way during these past three years in the implementation of our Vietnamization program.

Secretary Laird, after his first visit to Vietnam, made Vietnamization the first priority. His instructions were that all commanders were to do everything possible to help the South Vietnamese military build their own capability to do the job. The second priority was to achieve pacification of the countryside, and help the people of South Vietnam start rebuilding their country. The third priority was to fight the enemy. Those were the orders that were followed to the letter from that time on, and I am convinced that when all of the current fussing is over and this period is seen in the right perspective, this Vietnamization program will be recorded as one of the great accomplishments of our men and women in uniform. The picture of the Vietnamization operation has, of course, been distorted by the great emotional furor over the war, by the My Lai trials and by many other problems of this period. But I continually marveled as Mel and I made recommendations of additional things that ought to be done, these were carried out with the greatest precision and efficiency. A clear case I believe where the picture is different from the reality.”


Packard points to the Military Airlift Command and the Corps of Engineers  as due particular praise, saying there are many other good examples.


“The area, of course, where the services received the most criticism during these past three years was in their management of the development and procurement of major weapons systems. Much of the criticism was justified. I speculated then and since on why the services did such a poor job in handling major procurement programs when they could do such a superb job in other areas. I think we assessed this matter correctly, at least as far as one major factor is concerned, when we concluded that none of the services really considered the development and procurement of major weapon systems to be a recognized profession in the military organization. We directed a number of steps, including training, selection, and recognition of people for these key jobs. We established a new school in this profession. All of these steps I think are in the right direction, but until and unless all three services recognize this job to be as important as commanding a field army or an aircraft carrier, we will continue to be plagued with poor performance.”


Packard says civilian involvement in the military can be a problem too. “We must have civilians making overall policy decisions, such as Vietnamization. When it comes, however, to considering specific military actions from Washington – which targets to bomb, what specific constraints are to be put on the forces involved – this kind of civilian involvement in detail military activities tends to be…counter-productive. There is a parallel in the civilian involvement in other cases, particularly this matter of major weapon system development and procurement. The Services have the responsibility for the management of these programs, and for the civilians in the secretary’s office to get involved in any detail is counter-productive. During the last decade there was an increase in involvement of civilians, particularly the Systems Analysis office, but also DDR&E [?] and other offices, in the day-to-day details of these programs. It is hard to find a case where such involvement did not make matters worse rather than better. This kind of involvement violates a basic management principle that is known and applied wherever good management is desired. That principle says: give the manager the responsibility and the authority to do the job, make sure he understands what is expected, and if he can’t get the job done, don’t try to do it for him, but find someone else who can. I was continually amazed to find that this principle was fully accepted by the services in their main mission – that of military operations – yet failed to be accepted in those other areas of great importance that supported this prime mission.


“There was also the question of Congressional involvement in the details of these major weapons systems development and procurement programs, as well as in military construction and base operations. No representative of the Congress, for example, would think of telling a field commander how many tanks, how many guns, how many helicopters he should have for a particular military operation. Yet there are self-styled experts  in the Congress on almost every major procurement program. People who know, for example, that the F-14 is not the right kind of an airplane for an aircraft carrier. Or, that the main battle tank is no good, or that the Cheyenne helicopter should not be procured because it can not survive in a hostile environment.


“There is a parallel situation in determining how far civilians in the office of the Secretary, in the office of the Bureau of the Budget, and in the General Accounting Office can make useful contributions to some of these kinds of details. I could sometimes say what was on my mind to these fellows. Every time I have gone through this issue to think about what might be done to improve performance, I always arrived back at the same answer: Professional competence in the military services must be developed to manage these major weapon systems procurement programs and we must get as many of the Monday morning quarterbacks as possible out of the game. There just is no other way.


“Going back to Mr. Lippmam’s theme of the triangular relationship between the scene of action, the human picture of that scene and to the human response acting on the scene, there are many cases where the human picture is substantially different from the reality of the scene. It may be the human picture held by the public – the human picture held by the Congress – or even by people within the department. Defense issues are complex as well as immensely important. The closer the human picture can be brought to the reality of the scene the better the human response will be. More professionalism and less interference by amateurs will help. Those of you who influence public opinion can also help to the extent you are able to keep the human picture close to the reality of the scene.


“ Let me repeat –


“I am greatly honored to receive this award tonight. Thank you all very much.”


12/13/71, Handwritten letter to Packard from Charles Bartlett, a Washington newsman,  suggesting Packard meet with several newsmen sometime in January

12/15/71, Copy of letter from Packard to Charles Bartlett saying he is going to California for the Christmas holidays and will contact Bartlett when he gets back

12/15/71, Note from Margaret Paull to Dan Henkin sending him a copy of Bartlett’s letter and saying Packard would be interested in what he thought of Bartlett’s suggestion that Packard meet with some newsmen

12/17/71, Memorandum from Daniel Z. Henkin to Packard saying recommending he not meet with the newsmen as Bartlett suggested

1/5/72, Copy of a letter from Packard to Charles Bartlett, Declining the opportunity to meet with Bartlett and other newsmen.

2/2/72, Letter to Packard from Charles Bartlett saying he is pleased that Packard can be present on March 16 to receive the award for Distinguished Public Service from the Federal City Club

2/10/72, Copy of letter from Packard to Charles Bartlett confirming the date and time for the Federal City Club award

3/16/72, Copy of the program for The Federal City Club award dinner.

3/20/72, Copy of memorandum from Packard to Charles Bartlett saying he and Mrs. Packard enjoyed to Award Dinner

3/22/72, Letter to Packard from Senator Stuart Symington asking for a copy of Packard’s speech at the Federal City Club



Box 3, Folder 21 – General Speeches


March 24, 1972, Our New Foreign Policy for a Generation of Peace, San Jose Chamber of Commerce, San Jose CA


3/24/72,  Typewritten text of Packard’s speech with some handwritten notations by him


Contrasting San Jose, where “economic and social change can be measured over a fairly short period of time,” Packard feels, as far as foreign policy goes, “we are at an historical vantage point – an illuminated intersection from which we can look both backward and forward.”


Packard explains that, even though he was in the Defense Department “my job, in addition to being involved in the day-to-day management problems [of the Defense Department], was to plan for the military forces required for the future. American military forces have two responsibilities. First, they must provide for the security and safety of our country, and this includes the important function of our strategic nuclear forces. Second, they must support American foreign policy and American interests around the world.”


Packard says he spent nearly half his time in Washington helping to develop the President’s “exciting” new foreign policy.


Taking a backward look at American foreign policy from World War II to the beginning of 1969 Packard says that “By 1968 the traumatic condition of our country – violence in our universities, bitter dissent throughout society, and uncontrolled inflation – was to a very large degree testimony to the underlying failure of American foreign policy in the decade of the 1960s. That policy which had served us and the world so well from 1947 until 1960 was continued in the following decade and had nearly destroyed the country by 1969.”


Packard says that President Nixon, who took office in 1969, found it essential to find a new path. “The developments during the three years I was in Washington have provided our country with a new path – a path which will lead us from an era of Confrontation to an era of Negotiation: a path which, as President Nixon has said, will lead the world to a full generation of peace.”


Packard describes the “Theory of Containment” designed to hold back Communist Aggression. This was implemented via “The Truman Doctrine” and, in 1947, helped “preserve the governments of Greece and Turkey against the assaults of Communist-led or Communist-inspired revolutionaries.”


Packard also tells how the theory “was applied against North Korea and Communist China, between 1950 and 1954, with the help of the United Nations. It produced such alliance systems as NATO in Western Europe, SEATO in southeast Asia and CENTO in the Middle East. The policy of containment reached a peak of drama and danger during the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. This was a confrontation in the most deadly sense and only because we had a great superiority of strategic nuclear weapons did the Soviets back down.


“In the early stages of the post-war period, America had the resources to be the dominant military and economic power in the world. In 1950 the U.S. had 40% of the world’s GNP,  produced 76% of the world’s motor vehicles and 48% of the world’s steel….This dominant economic position enabled us to support in the 1950’s a defense establishment adequate to protect the entire free world.


“Prior to Korea we spent 5.6% of our GNP on defense. In perspective, this was too little, for the North Koreans misjudged our will and attacked the South. For this error in judgment about the need for strength in world affairs, we paid dearly. We had to commit men and resources to Korea, which in addition to the tragic human toll, brought our defense budget up to 13% of our GNP Along with the massive foreign aid we were providing, the cost of the war began to draw down our economic strength.


“By 1960 there had been a considerable stabilization in most areas where interests of the free world were involved. Most of our friends and allies, including former enemies, had largely recovered from the devastation of World War II and were in fact competing with America for world markets and economic gains.


“At the same time our continued outlays for defense and foreign aid were beginning to be a serious drain on our economy. The drain continued to increase – statistics tell this story more dramatically than could any amount of rhetoric. Let’s look at a couple of key industries. In 1950, we produced 76 percent of motor vehicles; in 1970, 31 percent. In 1950 we produced 46 percent of the world’s steel, in 1970, 20 percent. As recently as 1967 we produced more steel than the total European community. Today we produce less steel than Europe and less than the Soviet Union….We had simply given away so much and spent so much on defense that we were nearly bankrupt.”


“This overall deterioration of our world economic standing was felt, naturally enough, in our international trade position. In the early 1960’s we maintained a trade surplus of more than $5 billion annually. By 1968 the surplus was down to $1 billion….”


“As I joined Mel Laird in the Defense Department in January of 1969, our most important job was to help develop a new course which would bring our commitments in line with our resources, both domestically and internationally. World-wide military commitments had placed an unacceptable demand on our resources. And these had to be brought in line with our real national interests. Domestic problems needed a larger share of federal resources and, in a very real sense a reorientation of this country’s priorities was of the highest urgency.”


“I had the good fortune to be personally involved in the studies which were undertaken to assess what changes might be appropriate. This assessment considered what federal resources were likely to be available for all of our national goals, and how these resources might appropriately be reallocated between defense and the nation’s other priorities”

Packard describes “The Nixon Doctrine” which emerged from the study of national priorities: “First, the President said we will maintain a nuclear deterrent adequate to meet any threat to the security of the United States or to our allies.”


“The President also said that we will help other nations develop the capability of defending themselves. This simply says that in the future we will not take the full responsibility for the security of all our friends around the world. They should take a larger share of this load. The President also said we will honor all of our treaty commitments; we will act to defend our interests whenever or wherever they are threatened – but where our interests are not involved, our role will be limited. We will not intervene militarily.


“The cornerstones of the Nixon doctrine in foreign policy are negotiation, partnership and strength.”


To illustrate the progress made in negotiation Packard points to agreements with the Soviet Union on Berlin, germ warfare, and the prohibition of nuclear weapons on seabeds.  He adds that negotiations are taking place in the Middle East and in Indochina.


“Partnership is vital to the Nixon Doctrine because, as we call upon our allies to bear a larger share of the common defense, we must naturally expect them to want a larger voice in formulating  policy.


The most important pillar of the Nixon Doctrine, Packard says, is strength. Important, he says,  because a nation can only negotiate successfully and keep strong partners from a position of strength. Without military strength our enemies would hold us in contempt and our allies would desert us.”


Packard describes how they used the principles of the Nixon Doctrine to develop military force planning and prepared the defense budgets. “These budgets were prepared to provide forces to support the President’s new foreign policy – to assure that our nuclear forces were adequate for the security and safety of our country and our conventional forces were adequate to support the President’s new foreign policy.”


Packard outlines how  the military forces have been changed since 1968. “In 1968 our defense forces included 3.5 million military personnel and 1.3 million civilians. In 1972, we had reduced these forces to 2.4 military personnel and1.0 million civilians.


“At the same time that we were making these personnel cuts, we were also moving towards an inherently more expensive all-volunteer armed forces. As a result, the overall military pay bill has gone up even as forces have been reduced.”


“In 1968 a 3.5 million man force cost $20 billion for pay and personnel costs; in 1972, a 2.4 million man force is costing nearly $24 billion.


“As we addressed the problems of the future with lower levels of manpower, we reached the obvious conclusion. America cannot afford to gamble on the future with lower military force levels and also inferior weapons. We accordingly requested and obtained a higher R&D budget in 1972. R&D was about $7 billion in 1971; it will be $7.7 billion in 1972; and we have requested $8.5 billion for fiscal year 1973.”


Packard compares trends in spending, looking at defense vs. other areas:  “In the period 1964-1968 defense increased $27 billion, other federal spending increased $34 billion, and state and local, $33 billion. In the period 1969-1973, expressed in constant dollars, defense declined $32 billion; other federal spending increased $35 billion; and state and local spending increased $43 billion.”


Packard also gives some figures on the effect of Defense Department budget reductions on the overall economy. “In 1968 Defense took 9.5 percent of this nation’s GNP. The 1973 budget will take only 6.5 percent – the lowest drain on the economy in twenty years….The GNP should grow to 1 trillion 200 billion next year at the end of fiscal 1973. In these terms the reductions that have been made will be a drain on our resources of 36 billion dollars less in 1973 than in 1968. This is the real measure of the substantial reduction that has been made.”


Packard says he understands these reductions have had a serious impact on the economy of many sections of the country, including Santa Clara County. He tells his audience, however, that the downtrend is over and expenses will be level to slightly rising in the future. He says he is “convinced the actions we have taken will be positive and beneficial to America and the world – and also Santa Clara County – in the long run.


[At this point the text refers to an “optional” McGovern insert.] This insert reads as follows:


“Let me say parenthetically this is assuming the President is re-elected. If McGovern should happen to be elected, the economic problems you have experienced here in the last three years would seem mild indeed. He proposed to reduce the defense budget by $30 billion,. That would cost the defense industry three million jobs, twice the reduction there has been here since 1969. His proposed defense forces would also leave this country wide open to a nuclear attack by the Soviets.”


Continuing with the regular text, Packard says “In conclusion, I would like to say that the past three years I have spent in Washington have been an exciting experience; for the insights I have gained into how the process of government functions at the highest level, but much more important, for the chance I have had to watch the activity of a great man, Richard Nixon, and the way in which he has taken hold of the helm of our nation at a crucial time and guided us through the turbulence of a basic reorientation of our national objectives. When historians view our period three or four decades down the road, it is my firm conviction that the past three years will be viewed as a turning point in our nation’s history.”


2/9/72, Letter to Packard from Fred La Cosse, inviting him to speak to the Chamber of Commerce luncheon on Mar. 24.

2/23/72, Copy of letter to Fred La Cosse from Packard accepting the invitation.

2/29/72, Letter to Packard from Fred La Cosse acknowledging Packard’s acceptance and saying that agenda details will be forthcoming.

3/25/72, Clipping from the San Jose Mercury Newspaper covering Packard’s speech. The headline reads “Packard Blisters Demo Candidates” and includes some comments that were not in the text of his speech. “a proposal by McGovern would take $30 billion out of the defense budget. This would scrap the ABM, cancel the F-111, and halt the MIRV program.” After quoting further from Packard’s speech, the article concludes “His hour-long speech was neither interrupted by applause nor protesters who have plagued him at three prior Bay Area appearances.”

3/27/72, Copy of letter from Packard to Fred La Crosse [sic], saying it was a pleasure to speak before the San Jose Chamber of Commerce and thanking him for the service award certificate and cuff links.

3/27/72, Letter from Fred La Cosse to Packard saying the Chamber of Commerce appreciated Packard’s speech – which “was informative and a delight to hear.”



Box 3, Folder 22 – General Speeches


March 31, 1972, National Defense in the New American Foreign Policy, Commonwealth Club of California, San Francisco CA


3/31/72, Text of Packard’s speech


Packard explains why he, a former member of the Defense Department, is going to talk about foreign policy. “American military forces have two important functions to perform. First, they must provide for the security and safety of our country and its people. Second, they must be adequate to support American foreign policy and protect American interests around the world.


“It is in this second category that the Defense Department must be closely involved with American foreign policy. I estimate that I spent nearly half of my time in Washington in discussions relating to the development of the President’s exciting new foreign policy and its impact on future military force requirements. That is what I want to tell you about today , for there has been a major change in American foreign policy since 1969.”


Packard says 1968 was the end of the post-war era and the beginning of a new era. The post-war era brought the United Nations as well as the expansionary aims of the Soviet Union. Confrontation began with the Truman Doctrine, Greece and Turkey, NATO, CENTO in the Middle East, and SEATO in Southeast Asia. Korea came in the mid-1950s.


“In the early years of this era of confrontation , America had the resources to be the dominant military power and the dominant economic power in the world. We were able to support through the decade of the 1950 a defense establishment adequate to protect the entire free world We were able to provide economic aid for Europe, Japan, and most of the developing countries of the world.”


“We began the decade of the 1950s with 50 percent of the world’s monetary reserves. We produced 76 percent of the world’s motor vehicles, 46 percent of the world’s steel, nearly all of the world’s sophisticated electronic equipment, and we produced a vast surplus of food.”


“As President Kennedy took office in 1961 there were signs that our economy was being overtaxed and that we were carrying a disproportionate share of the burden of the free world. Yet, he boldly stated, ‘We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.’ The course was set to continue the policy of confrontation into the decade of the 1960s. Indeed, the confrontation intensified – the Berlin wall, the Cuban missile crisis, and then Vietnam.


“By 1968, the pressures generated to a large degree by our foreign policy had created an intolerable strain on all segments of our society. There was rioting and burning in the streets, our great Universities were in shambles, inflation was rampant. Our international monetary reserves had shrunk from 50 percent to 16 percent of the world’s total. We had 549,000 men and women in Vietnam, and no plan to bring them home short of unconditional surrender to the North Vietnamese communists.”


While agreeing that “It would have taken a wise man and a strong man indeed to have led America on a different course in 1961….Nevertheless, the fact remains that the disastrous situation America faced in 1968 was to a very large degree caused by the failure of our foreign policy in the decade of the 1960s. The foreign policy-defense picture was not rosy as I joined President Nixon’s administration in the spring of 1969.”


“One of my first assignments in Washington was to chair a joint study group to prepare…an evaluation of the options available to reset the course of American foreign policy for the decade of the 1970s and beyond.”


Packard says this study group approached the problem from the stanPackardoint of – “what military capability would be required to support various foreign policy options and what military capability could we provide if larger shares of federal resources were allocated to the domestic needs of the country.”


“It was clear to all that our country needed a new foreign policy, but it was equally clear to those of us who were examining the alternatives in detail that the extremes of an arms build-up or unilateral disarmament would not do. The course adopted – and enunciated by the President in Guam in 1969 – was a shifting in the philosophy of our foreign policy from a policy based on confrontation to a policy based on negotiation. No longer would we assume the overwhelming responsibility we had born in the previous two and-one-half decades. No longer would we pay any price and bear any burden to assure the survival and success of liberty anywhere in the world.


“On the other hand, we did not intend to withdraw from the world. We were not going to withdraw from the important responsibilities and contributions we could make as a great world power. In sum, we were going to tailor our commitments to our real interests and limit our commitments to those we could realistically support within our resources.”


“This new foreign policy boils down to two important elements. First, it requires our friends and allies around the world to carry a larger share of the burden for their security – both in monetary cost and in manpower. Second, it proposes that we attempt, through negotiation, to reduce the points of friction and reduce the possibility of confrontation which might lead to war in the future.”


Packard says the new foreign policy requires, “while abjuring the principle of nuclear supremacy, we insist on ‘assured deterrence.’ He says by that we mean “a nuclear force adequate to deter nuclear war under all possible conditions. We do today have assured deterrence, but only because we went ahead with the MIRV program. Incidentally, I should point out that this program was opposed while I was in Washington by Senators Humphrey, McGovern, Muskie, Kennedy, and by other liberals in the Senate. And if this opposition had prevailed we would not today have a ‘strategic sufficiency.’


On the subject of conventional forces Packard says “…the Nixon Doctrine permits us to handle the military requirements of our national interest with a smaller conventional force than we have maintained in the past, in terms of the specific problems in specific areas of the world.


“The most obvious example of this facet of the Nixon doctrine is Vietnam. In 1968 we had over 540,000 troops in Vietnam, were spending nearly $30 billion per year, and had no intelligent plan for the withdrawal of American forces from that theater. Today our troop level is under 100,000, we are spending less than $10 billion per year, and we are well along in an intelligently planned program for withdrawal. And yet, despite this enormous cutback in our military commitment we are leaving the people of South Vietnam with a very strong capability of defending their country from the communist invaders as long as they have the will to do so.


“Throughout Asia our ability to maintain peace with fewer conventional military forces has been engaged by the opening up of relations with the People’s Republic of China. To be sure, Washington-Peking conversations offer no guarantee that North Vietnam and North Korea and insurgency movements elsewhere will all of a sudden turn into lambs. But our new relations with the Chinese do make realistic the expectation that we need not become embroiled in a land war with Chinese troops: a development which clearly would place severe strains, perhaps unacceptable strains, on our great resources and on our society.


“The Middle East is another trouble spot where, with the judicious use of a minimal amount of American military presence we are achieving very significant results. Where once full-scale fighting raged, now we see the possibility of serious negotiations.”


“ I should point out here that two of President Nixon’s highly criticized foreign policy actions – namely, America’s support of Pakistan in the Indo-Pakistan war, and our continued working relations with the Greek government – have both contributed significantly to American ability to maintain peace in the Middle East. The support of Pakistan enhanced our credibility with the Arab countries, and continued good relations with Greece are absolutely essential if we are to be able to operate our sixth fleet in the Eastern Mediterranean. There is irony in the fact that some of the most vociferous opponents of our support for Pakistan and Greece are also some of the most vociferous pro-Israeli voices in the country.”


“Beginning in 1969 we made substantial reductions in procurement, and leveled off R and D expenditures. These reductions were possible because of our Vietnamization program and because we could begin to move toward lower force levels as we began to implement the president’s new foreign policy.
“I am happy to report that the impact of Defense reductions on the economy has now leveled out. From now on there will be some increases, particularly in research and development….These increases were made on the basic proposition that, while the security of America and our new foreign policy can be supported with lower force levels, they cannot be supported with inferior weapons.


“One area of expenditure in which costs have gone up sharply bears special mention: namely the cost of military personnel. The FY 1973 Defense Budget, which was submitted to the congress in January, provides for 2.4 million military personnel and 1.0 million civilians. This is down from 3.5 million military personnel, and 1.3 million civilians in FY 1968 – 1.4 million fewer people on the Defense payroll. This has been possible because we have withdrawn 450,000 people from Vietnam, and many thousands from other overseas areas – all because our friends and allies have been able to accept a larger share of the burden.


“As we have reduced the number of men and women in uniform, we have taken steps toward an all-volunteer Army. Among these steps is a correction of the gross inequality between what men in uniform and civilians in our society earn.”


Packard gives some examples of these pay changes: “In 1964 a first year recruit earned $78 per month. Starting January 1973, he will earn $332 per month – four times as much….A Colonel or Navy Captain earned just under a thousand dollars a month in 1964. In 1973 this will increase to over two thousand.”


“Despite the special costs associated with R and D and with the move to a volunteer Army, there has been a real and substantial reordering of the application  of federal resources in these past three years….The real impact is best expressed in purchasing power – in constant dollars. From the spring of 1969 to the fiscal 1973 budget, Defense cost in constant dollars has declined $32 billion, while other Federal spending has increased $35 billion, and at the same time State and Local spending has increased some $43 billion. Defense spending in the year beginning July 1, 1972 as a percentage of GNP will be at its lowest level in 10 years.


“There is no room for further reductions of substance in Defense spending. Those who propose further reductions of 10 – 15 – or 30 billion – and all of these figures have been mentioned – just do not understand what has happened in these past three years. Further reductions in the Defense Budget will commit America to withdraw from the world, to embark on a certain course to the status of a second rate world power in the decade of the 1980s – a course that America need not, cannot, take.”


Packard  says that in spite of all that has been done, there is no room for complacency. “ In the area of foreign affairs, there remains a great deal to be done. The initial steps we have taken to begin a dialog with the People’s Republic of China and to tie down some concrete points of agreement between the Soviet Union and ourselves must be carried forward. A solution to the foreign aid problem must be found: despite all the pitfalls, errors, and domestic disenchantment with foreign aid, our wealth, our humanitarian traditions, and our interest dictate that we have an active foreign assistance program. We need to finish the construction with our partners of a reformed trade and monetary system. And we must continue to build an international system – including a strong concern for the United Nations – which all members of the international community will work to preserve because they recognize their stake in its preservation.


“While I hope no one leaves this luncheon with a sense of complacency about our foreign policy achievements, I also hope no one leaves this luncheon without fully realizing the dramatic reorientation brought to our foreign policy by the Nixon administration. The continuing stream of criticism against the President’s foreign policy – much of it the result of political self-interest; much of it the result of plain old narrow-minded isolationism – has all too often dominated the media. It is critically important that an influential a group such as the Commonwealth Club understand that what has been accomplished during the past three years represents the most fundamental change in American foreign policy in two-and-one-half decades. It is the foundation for a new era in our foreign policy. While we cannot predict the infinite and intricate variations of this new foreign policy during the next decades, I am convinced that the Nixon Doctrine will remain the guiding concept until the end of this century.


“In conclusion, I submit to you that during the last three years we have lived through an epoch-making formative period, equivalent in importance to the period between the end of World War II and our entry into the Korean War. I am proud to have been associated, in however small measure, with this momentous endeavor, and I am proud that you invited me here today to share some of my thoughts and my concerns with you. Thank you.”


3/31/72,  Reference numbers Packard had written for himself

3/13/72, Letter to Packard from Durward Riggs, Executive Secretary, Commonwealth Club of California, saying he is pleased Packard has accepted the date to speak to the Club. Some background data is attached

3/21/72, Letter to Packard from J. K. Gustafson, Chairman of the Board, Homestake Mining Company, complimenting him on his speech.

3/27/72, Copy of the Club publication

4/3/72,  Letter to Packard from Durward Riggs, thanking for speaking to their group. He comments “I’m sure that the heart of any speaker would have been warmed by the response you elicited from your audience.”



Box 3, Folder 23 – General Speeches


April 6, 1972, Interracial Council for Business Opportunity, New York, NY


4/6/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s comments, with handwritten notations by him. Packard acted as Co-Chairman, introducing other speakers and award presenters.


Packard says all in attendance have a common interest: “that is to do all that we can to help alleviate the problems faced by the minority groups within our society. This is an interest of long –standing for me personally, and I hope that it is reflected to some degree by the efforts we have made in a number of communities around the country where Hewlett-Packard plants are located, and by some of the things we were able to do in the Department of Defense were I spent my last three years.


“When Secretary and I joined the Department in 1969, both of us resolved that the Department had the responsibility to utilize its resources and people to help with the problems of the minoriti3es both within and outside of the armed forces. Because we felt strongly about this, we initiated a number of Department programs and activities designed to contribute to the improvement of society, particularly the disadvantaged.”


Packard tells of some of the programs the DOD initiated: in 1971 they hired 46,000 young people, 76% of whom were disadvantaged; they asked every military base in the country to use their resources to support educational, recreational and cultural programs for disadvantaged youths He says, “Over 2.4 million young people participated in these programs in 1971, as compared with 250,000 in 1969.


“We set up a school to train officers to better understand the problems faced by minorities within the Armed Services. We made it clear that we expected an atmosphere of true equal opportunity for all of the servicemen and women in the armed forces, as will as the civilians within the department.”


“ I was very pleased by the response of Military leaders from the Joint Chiefs on down. They are well aware of their responsibilities in this area.


“I believe that a great many people, in both the public and private sectors, have contributed to the progress that has been made in solving the problems of the minorities.”


Packard says he is “pleased to Secretary Stans here tonight,” adding that he “was a great leader in a number of activities to improve economic opportunities for minorities before he joined President Nixon’s administration in Washington in 1969.”


The private sector “has an important and a continuing role. I am delighted to see you are here tonight – because I know it means you – as representatives of a large portion of the private sector – share my interest and concern for solving these problems, and because I know that it is an indication of your continuing support of the Interracial Council for Business Opportunity.”


Packard then introduces Mr. William R. Hudgins “who will present the first award tonight.” In his introductory comments Packard describes Hudgins as the “man who has served as the National Co-Chairman of the Interracial Council for Business Opportunity for the past three years, and who is President of the Harlem-based Freedom National of New York – the largest black-owned banking institution in the country.”


After Mr. Hudgins’ comments, Packard introduces the next speaker – Mr. Darwin W. Bolden. He describes Mr. Bolden as “the National Executive Director of the Interracial Council for Business Opportunity, and a member of President Nixon’s Advisory Committee on Minority enterprise.”


To make the second award of the evening, Packard introduces Mr. Rodman C. Rockefeller, “President of the International Basic Economy Corporation – a private sector development company which initiates and operates corporate ventures responsive to basic human needs and the economies of developing nations.” He says Rockefeller has been a Co-Chairman of ICBO since its inception in 1963.


4/3/72, Letter to Packard from Edith Ross, Dinner Coordinator, enclosing biographical material o William Hudgins, Maurice Stans, Darwin Bolden and Rodman Rockefeller, asking that he introduce these people. Biographical material on Leonard Evans, Jr. also Co-Chairman for the dinner is also attached

4/6/72, Printed program for the ICBO Ninth Annual Dinner Program

4/6/72, List of guests at the dinner and list of  “prospects”

7/1/69,  Six page history of the ICBO

12/16/71, Letter to Packard from William R. Hudgins, Rodman C. Rockefeller, and Darwin W. Bolden asking Packard to be the Co-Chairman at their Ninth Annual National ICBO Dinner. Background material on the ICBO is enclosed, as well as a copy of a letter to Packard from Mr. Rockefeller dated Sept. 18, 1969 asking Packard to be the speaker at the ICBO Major Industries luncheon on October 15, 1969. {There is no indication in the file of speeches made by Packard that he accepted this invitation]

12/21/71, Letter to Packard from Rodman C. Rockefeller saying that he has been involved with the ICBO since its inception, and expressing the hope that Packard will accept the invitation to be Co-Chair at their dinner

1/5/72, Copy of a letter to Rodman Rockefeller form Packard accepting the invitation to be Co-Chair at the ICBO dinner

1/12/72, Letter to Packard from Darwin W. Bolden thanking him for agreeing to be Co-Chair at the dinner and enclosing a draft of a letter they wish to send over the signature of Packard and the other Co-Chair, Leonard Evans, Jr., to various company people.

Letter to Packard from Rodman Rockefeller saying he is delighted he has accepted the invitation to be Co-Chair

1/19/72, Copy of a letter from Packard to Darwin W. Bolden saying the draft is satisfactory to him

2/15/72, Letter to Packard from Edith Ross asking for a photograph of Packard and a biographical sketch

2/23/72, Copy of a letter to Edith Ross from David Kirby enclosing  the requested photo and biographical material

3/13/72, Letter to Packard from Edith Ross saying they have sold only 214 tickets to the dinner and hope to sell 1500 more. She asks Packard’s help in sending out more personal letters

3/20/72, Copy of the “personal letter” Packard sent to people in industry, and the list of people who received it

3/21/72, Letter to Packard from Harold Wheeler, Chairman of the Board, Hazeltine Corp., declining the invitation

March, 1972, Copy of a  sample letter from the ICBO Dinner Committee sending tickets to those having purchased them

4/5/72, Letter to Packard from Gordon Metcalf, Chairman of the Board, Sears, Roebuck and Co., saying ICBO is not on the list of organizations Sears will be able to help

4/6/72, Letter to Packard from W. W. Morison, President, Foremost-McKesson, Inc., sending regrets.

4/11/72, Letter to Packard from Darwin Bolden, extending appreciation for Packard’s participation at the ICBO dinner and expressing the hope that Packard will be able to help in the future

4/18/72, Letter to Packard from Rodman C. Rockefeller expressing appreciation for Packard’s participation .



Box 3, Folder 24 – General Speeches


April 8, 1972, California Republican Assembly, Palo Alto, CA


4/8/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech with handwritten notations by him.


Saying that he has just returned from a three year tour in Washington, Packard calls these “the most interesting years of my life.” He admits “they were not the most enjoyable by any means, for among other things Washington is a rough, often mean and vicious league.”


“Throughout my three years in Washington, time and time again I say examples of irresponsible behavior – irresponsible behavior with the gravest implications.


“I heard scientists use their reputations gained in unrelated fields to influence legislation to stultify national defense programs  – particularly the all-important strategic nuclear programs upon which the security of our country depends.


“I heard distinguished newsmen favor Hanoi, Moscow, and New Delhi over America in their reporting.”


Packard is particularly disturbed by criticism of the military which he sees “in the press, on TV, in many of our liberal universities, and even by some elected public officials – who, of all people, should know better,” He says, “I can understand disillusionment with Vietnam policy going back to 1966 or so, but the military does not deserve the criticism. The policy was dictated and directed by Administration civilians. Particularly disturbing has been the manner in which some members of Congress, particularly in the Senate, took great delight in seizing on any fact or figure which could be used – usually magnified, distorted, and out of context – to discredit the military and all those who supported the Defense Department.”


In spite of these experiences Packard says he found many “inspiring experiences,” particularly coming from his work with the military.


“You cannot help but be very impressed with the great dedication of all of the men and women in uniform – and with the way they function with military discipline.” He is also complimentary of Dr. Henry Kissinger. “We in Defense worked closely with Dr. Kissinger, and I can tell you that all the talk about Dr. Kissinger’s being some sort of a tyrant is inaccurate. The study groups he chaired were open to all kinds of input. Every relevant department, including State, had ample opportunity to contribute. No one was reticent about expressing his personal opinion.”


Packard calls Melvin Laird “an outstanding colleague,” and says working with President Nixon was “an exceptional experience.”


“…in 1968 a man able to act with both calmness and courage was exactly what this country needed. There was rioting and burning in the streets, our great universities were in shambles, inflation was rampant, and we had 549,000 men and women embroiled in a seemingly endless war in Vietnam.


“There was clearly a pressing need for a new foreign policy, and so in the spring of 1969 we began to reevaluate our system of worldwide commitments. After much analysis and evaluation of options, a new foreign policy began to evolve, and it boils down to three important elements. First, it requires our friends and allies around the world to carry a larger share of the burden for their security – both in monetary cost and in manpower. Second, it proposes that we attempt, through negotiation, to reduce the points of friction and reduce the possibility of confrontation. Third, it demands we remain strong, since only from strength is it possible to have useful negotiations with Communists. These pillars form the core of the Nixon doctrine.”


Packard looks at “burden sharing,” saying “America has been carrying too large a share of the free world’s burdens for too long.


“For example, the United States spent in 1968 9.5% of its gross national products on defense; West Germany 2.9%; Japan less that 1%.


“Such disproportion may have been appropriate when the United States had the overwhelming economic power that it did immediately following world War II. But the situation has changed drastically. The best indicator is that in 1950, we held 50% of the international monetary reserves; in 1970, only 16%.”


Packard looks at the cuts which have been made in the military budget over the past three years. “Naturally, these cuts created short-term hardships in some sections of the country, and the President was always aware of these problems. But cuts in procurement have now leveled off, and I would like to ask if anyone in this room imagines that Mr. Humphrey, if elected in 1968, would have shown nearly the concern for adequate defense spending that this Administration has shown. Let me ask you if you think any of the likely Democratic candidates in 1972, Humphrey, McGovern, Muskie or Kennedy would support adequate defense spending during the next four years.”


Packard looks next at “Negotiation,”  the second pillar of the Nixon doctrine. “Let me make clear that negotiation is not a codeword for capitulation. It does not suppose that all communist states have metamorphosed into lambs. Clearly, communism is still fundamentally an aggressive movement and must be treated accordingly.


“But the fact is that dramatic changes in the structure of world politics have taken place recently and that these changes permit us, in deed require us, to approach the international area with greater flexibility. We no longer live in a bipolar world.”


Citing the “remarkable” economic progress of the free world, and the Sino-soviet split, he says a “greater flexibility in world politics” has created “more opportunities for negotiation. Negotiation seeks to…minimize the possibility of nuclear war. It does not, however, pretend that freedom and Communism are not still basically opposing forces.”


Packard then tu4ns to the matter of “military strength.” He asks, “How do we measure military strength? I mentioned to you earlier that our defense expenditures have gone down.” He says this does not mean military effectiveness has gone down as well. Superior, more effective weapons are the answer and he gives an example where “smart bombs were able destroy a target with 20 sorties and $600,000, versus 1,000 sorties and $15 million in expense for conventional bombs.


Packard says, “There are areas where reduction is not acceptable, particularly with strategic weapons. So when Secretary Laird and I moved into office, we immediately began extensive studies to see what new systems might be necessary to insure that our strategic nuclear forces sill provide an adequate nuclear deterrent – not only for today, but also into the foreseeable future.”


“One very important specific program we moved forward in MIRV (Multiple Independent Reentry Vehicle). The purpose of MIRV in our Minutemen forces is to offset the Soviet’s increasing stock of land-based weapons, and in the Poseidon program, to offset the recent rapid growth of the Soviet submarine forces. MIRV, incidentally, was opposed by Senators Humphrey, McGovern, Muskie, and Kennedy, among other senate liberals.

“The ABM is another program for which President Nixon fought valiantly against his Congressional critics, and I trust I need not spell out for you the significance of this program. The politics of this fight is interesting, and I would like to share one sidelight with you. Senator Humphrey is now saying that he supported the ABM, but, if so, it is news to me. I recall an official dinner one evening in the spring of 1969 when he was the featured speaker. I happened to be at the some table with the Soviet Ambassador, Mr. Dobrynin. Mr. Humphrey was roasting the ABM program royally, and Mr. Dobrynin was enjoying it greatly, smiling broadly throughout the whole show.”


“The Nixon Administration has also been moving head on conventional forces. The F 15, the AX, the F 14, the Harrier and the Agile missile – all important developments we supported and accelerated – will provide greatly improved air power for our Air force, Navy and Marines. We increased the Navy shipbuilding budget by some $2 billion, which increases the production of nuclear attack submarines, modern destroyers and frigates. We have two nuclear carriers under construction and have requested funds for the third in the FY-1973 budget.”


“Our forces have much greater and more effective fire power today, and I know of no attractive research and development program that is not adequately provided for in the FY 1973 budget.”


“Military pay scales have been dramatically upgrades – providing a long overdue correction to the gross inequality of pay between men in the military services and those in the civil service.”


“And research and development has been increased. We increased it from $7 billion in 1971 to $7.7 billion this year, and we requested $8.5 billion for fiscal 1973.”


“We can afford lower conventional force levels because our friends and allies are carrying a larger share of the burden of their own defense. We have a dramatic example in Vietnam today – the South Vietnamese are defending their own country and they have the capability of doing so if the have the will. You can be mighty thankful those are not American boys fighting on the ground tonight in Vietnam on the DMZ [Demilitarized Zone].


“The President has reduced our worldwide interests. He has said we will honor our treaty commitment, but that does not require that we provide American ground forces in every case.


“Naturally, with all the recent banner headlines about North Vietnamese offensives, I cannot stand up here and offer complacent generalizations about the situation in Vietnam. Nor can I guarantee you that the South Vietnamese will-t0-win, something no foreign power can instill, will bring victory after victory. But I can say that the Nixon Administration has taken and is taking all necessary steps to provide South Vietnam with the equipment and training necessary for the defense of that country. I say that is discharging our obligation to the people of South Vietnam.


“Elsewhere in Asia our ability to maintain peace with fewer conventional military forces will be, we believe, enhances by the opening up of relations with the People’s Republic of China. To be sure, Washington-Peking conversations offer n9o guarantee that China, North Korea, North Vietnam, or any of the indigenous communist movements. Will turn their swords into plowshares. But our new relations with the Chinese do make realistic the expectation that we need not become embroiled in a land war with Chinese troops.


“The Middle East is another trouble spot where, with the judicious use of a minimal amount of military force, we have seen some encouraging programs. Where once full-scale fighting raged, now we see negotiations being pursued with strong hopes of continuing the current cease-fire and moderately good hopes of bringing some sort of long-term accommodation between Jews and Arabs.


“On a closing note, I would like to come right out and make some political statements, just in case you feel up to now I have been too apolitical. I have watched with interest the development of the Democratic primary, and I was particularly interested, as I am sure we all were, by the results of the Wisconsin race. The one Democratic candidate whose position on defense and national security issues was realistic seems to have been knocked out of the race. And, at the other end of the spectrum, the democratic candidate whose views on national defense are clearly the most irresponsible – he would start out by cutting $30 billion from the defense budget – received a dramatic boost. What once seemed unthinkable, that this candidate actually has a serious chance to take command of our armed services and our strategic arsenal, is now very far from unthinkable.


“It is becoming increasingly evident that the gulf between the Republicans and the democrats on national security is perilously large. The need for active volunteer Republican organizations has, therefore, become a national imperative. If ever there was any doubt that organizations such as the California Republican Assembly are vital to the security of our country, it is now dispelled. I am working to re-elect the President because I have full confidence in him. For three years he gave Secretary Laird and me complete support on every issue involving our national security. We have absolutely no possibility of a stronger, more capable man at the head of this great nation of ours than Richard Nixon. Let’s keep him there.”


4/8/72, Typed, single-spaced copy of Packard’s speech

4/8/72, Typed draft of Packard’s speech. Appears to have been given to someone other than Packard for comment. Some handwritten notations by Packard and by another person are evident as well

1/24/72, Letter to Packard from Allyn c. Miller inviting him to speak at the California Republican Assemble State Convention in Palo Alto on April 8, 1972

2/2/72, Letter to Packard from Hugh S. Koford, of the CRA. Confirming the arrangements

3/7/72, Copy of letter to E. A. Herron [of CRA it would appear], from Max Larsen of North American Rockwell, discussing the need to avoid duplication of Packard’s comments and those of Bob Anderson from Rockwell

3/14/72, Letter to Packard from E. A. Herron, giving Packard the gist of Bob Anderson’s remarks

3/27/72, Letter to Packard from Hugh S. Koford giving details of the luncheon

4/11/72, Letter to Packard from Hugh S. Koford expressing appreciation for Packard’s participation and forbearance in the face of program difficulties




Box 3, Folder 25 – General speeches


April 12, 1972, Accepting the Business Statesman Award, Harvard Business School Club, New York, NY


4/12/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech, with extensive handwritten additions by him


Packard says it was a “great experience to spend three years with President Nixon’s Administration in Washington” He speaks of frustrations and hard work, but says they got some things done – “even some important changes….” He points to one big difference from the business world – no profit and loss statement to test decisions. “Whether some of the things Mel Laird and I were able to do in the Defense department will result in real improvement – and even if so whether they will last – only time will tell.”


Packard says his job in the Defense Department had two facets. “One was to work on the management problems of the Pentagon – and I say that advisedly – I don’t believe anyone can manage the Pentagon.”


“he other facet of my job there was to work with the State Department and Dr. Kissinger’s staff for the National Security Council on many very interesting and important international issues – Vietnam, NATO, the Middle East, south Asia – and of course, the most important issue of all, strategic nuclear arms.


“Our strategic nuclear policy is the most important defense issue, for unless our country maintains strategic nuclear forces and a strategic nuclear policy adequate to absolutely deter nuclear war – not only for today but forever – none of the other issues will matter very much. We have adequate forces today – we will have adequate strategic nuclear forces in the future – regardless of the outcome of the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks with the Soviets – if the programs we have requested in the fiscal 1973 budget are approved.


“President Nixon’s leadership in foreign policy has been the most enlightened and the most important America has had for may decades. Indeed, in the first three years of this administration he has moved our country’s foreign policy from one which had nearly bankrupted our economy and destroyed our society by 1968, to one that holds not only the hope – but the real promise – of a generation of peace.”


Packard describes “some interesting management problems in the Pentagon….With some 3.5 million people on the payroll and a budget that calls for spending $200 million a day, 365 days a year, it is a credit to the thousands of capable men and women – in uniform and civilians – that the department runs as well as it does.”


Packard says he was “greatly impressed with the dedicated and capable people in the department of defense – both military and civilian….I often thought as I worked with the people in the Defense Department – and the Military Services – I had as fine a team of dedicated, capable people as could be found in the private business world.”


Packard says “It would be great if every businessman could spend some time in Washington – at least once in a position of responsibility. One thing you would learn is that businessmen, and good business management practice alone cannot solve all of the complex problems of big government. At the same time, there are a great many areas where sound business management can, and does, contribute to better government.”


There is a great difference between the political world and the business world. One cannot be in Washington for long without learning that political skill is just as necessary – perhaps more necessary – than skill in business management to get something useful done. I had a great mentor while I was there in Mel Laird. He is a professional politician in the best sense of the word. He was, and is, highly respected by the congress as well as by his peers in the Administration. I can think of no one who could have done a better job as secretary of defense than Mel Laird has done during these turbulent three years I spent working with him. In fact, despite all the criticism of the defense department, since 1969 we were the only department that did not lose a major issue in the congress. A real tribute to Secretary Laird’s political skill.


“One thing troubles me greatly as a result of my experience in Washington. It is very difficult for the public to really know what the true situation is on any issue. Many times while I was there, an issue which I knew about was wrongly reported by the news media. Sometimes it was because fragmentary information from a leak was used. Sometimes it was poor communication from the Administration. Sometimes it appeared to e wantonly vicious reporting. It seldom did any good to try to correct the story later – the first release covered the news on the front page – a correction was among the want ads.” Packard says he doesn’t want to indite all reporters and commentators – “the vast majority are smart, dedicated and honest men and women. The only way to deal with the problem was to ignore it and get on with the job – by the time you worried about the case of today, there would be another one tomorrow anyway.”


Packard says that in spite of “the many trials and frustrations, I am glad that I was able to spend three years in Washington. I often thought I was at a great disadvantage for…I have neither the ambition nor temperment [sic] of a politician or a bureaucrat.


“I developed a great respect for the men and women in Washington – in the Congress, in the Administration, and in the thousands of offices that do the day to day work. When one measures what they do against the complex and important problems they face they deserve our respect and appreciation.


“And I want to thank you for the honor you have given me tonight. I appreciate your recognition, especially from this distinguished Club representing the management profession.


“Thank you very much.”


4/12/72, Printed program for The International dinner of The Harvard business School club of New York

1/18/72, Letter to Packard from Albert H. Gordon, chairman, Kidder, Peabody & Co., saying HBS members are delighted that Packard is willing to accept the Business Statesman Award

4/3/72, Letter to Packard from Albert Gordon going over details of the dinner

4/18/72, Letter to Packard from Albert Gordon thanking Packard for accepting the Award.

4/26/72, Copy of a letter from Packard to Albert Gordon saying he and Mrs. Packard enjoyed the dinner, and he thanks Gordon for the “beautiful Steuben Bowl…”

7/17/72, Letter to Packard from Albert Gordon enclosing a copy of the Harvard Business School International Dinner booklet.

7/28/72, Letter to Packard from Ray N. Peterson, enclosing a copy of the Harvard Bulletin which covers the Award Dinner.

7/28/72, Note from Carl Franklin also enclosing a copy of the HBS Bulletin



Box 3, Folder 26 – General Speeches


April 20, 1972, Republican Central committee, San Mateo, CA


4/20/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech


“I am pleased to be here tonight,” Packard says, “we have enthusiasm….we have unity….we are going to win this year….We have unity because of our commonly held principles. And the most basic of these is that individuals, not large organizations or blocks of special interests, are the great strength of our country.”


Packard says he is reminded of Herbert Hoover’s statement on the Uncommon Man and he reads a quote from this statement – which is to the effect that Hoover feels there has been too much talk about the common man – becoming almost a cult. Hoover says we need more uncommon men – an uncommon doctor when we are sick, an uncommon mechanic when our car breaks down….parents always want their children to be uncommon achievers.


Packard points to the growth of government: government forms to fill out, applying for permits, paying taxes, welfare, social security, Medicare, environmental controls. “There is no such thing as the Uncommon Man in this scheme of things – we are all rapidly becoming modern common men – each a number in a computer.”


“This all began,” Packard says, “under the Democratic Party – Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s. It has grown over these past three decades through a patchwork of appeals to minority interests under the sponsorship of the Democratic Party, ….”


Packard refers to the “cantankerous” Democratic Congress and says it is “important…not  only to re-elect the President, but also to change some faces in the House and the Senate, too.”


“Look at the current fuss from the Democrats about ‘closing tax loopholes.’ While this sounds very nice, it boils down to just another plan to tax the individuals and companies who are the economic mainstay of this country. Of course, the Democrats invoke the sacred name of the ‘common man’ whenever they come through with these new tax schemes. But it’s a funny thing: the eloquent Democratic politicians never give this ‘common man’ the one thing he really wants; lower taxes. Quite the contrary, as a result of pressure from ultra-liberal Congressmen, tax rates for all Americans go up and up and up.”


Packard asks where all this increased tax revenue goes. And he answers by saying “a big hunk goes simply to keep up with the cost of inflation – inflation fueled by deficit government spending.” He adds wasted experimental programs, urban renewal, increases for social security and the “enormous” welfare system.


“Often the Democrats’ pet special-interest projects are not so politically appealing, and then more devious techniques need to be developed. One such is appointing judges who will use the courts to push special interest programs the Democrats could never hope to get through congress or a State legislature. An example of this arrogance is the California Supreme Court’s decision to eliminate local property taxes as the sole source of school revenues.


“Not only does this decision bring yet another redistribution of income whose morality is far from clear, it also raises the serious danger of increased control of local education by state bureaucrats. And it may set a precedence for statewide financing, and therefore control, of all our other public services.


“Or take the busing issue, where a string of Democrat-appointed judges have attempted, and on several cases succeeded, in ordering a drastic change in our whole educational system – and all without the benefit of a single law.


“President Nixon has taken a strong hand against this relentless pressure by the Democratic party to make everyone a common man. He has proposed revenue sharing – to give the people a more effective voice in how their money will be spent. The Democrats want to keep a tight control of your money in Washington. He has taken action on taxes to close loopholes of abuse, yet to encourage private incentive to economic progress. The Democrats are proposing a so-called ‘tax reform’ which, if enacted, would be virtually the final step from private enterprise to socialism in America.


“President Nixon has strongly supported opening  the doors of opportunity to the minority people – black capitalism, self help and personal encouragement and that is what these people want and deserve – a piece of the action. The Democrats would take care of them by raising the level of relief – by making them totally dependent on and therefore submissive to the Federal Government.  With the  hope, of course, that this will further insure their vote for the Democratic party.


“If the policies of the democratic party are pursued in the name of the common man, we will most certainly have more common men and women in America, more common black men and women – more common Chicanos – more common American Indians – all glorified with the honor of an immortal place in the memories of the computers in Washington.”


Packard says “Democrats have been going out of their way to exploit national defense issues for political gain. In the 1968 Presidential campaign, Nixon simply stated he had a plan to get us out of Vietnam with honor.


“By contrast , what do we hear today from the Democrats about the way President  Nixon is trying to phase out their war? We hear sharp attacks on both the conduct of the war and the strategy of Vietnamization. We hear attacks made solely for political gain. What statesmanlike motives, I ask you, led Senator Muskie to blast an Administration peace plan before even the North Vietnamese had responded to it?  What statesmanlike moves led the Senate Foreign Relations committee to vote this week to cut off all money for the protection of American troops in Vietnam by the end to this year? What statesmanlike thinking causes elected officials of this country to give more support and sympathy to Hanoi than to their own country?”


Regarding Vietnam Packard tells of two things he says Nixon’s plan does not include. “It does not include delivering the people of South Vietnam against their will to the Communists. It does not include crawling on our knees either out of Vietnam, nor crawling on our knees to the negotiating table.”


Packard says Nixon’s plan does include: stopping all fighting and withdrawing all American troops – followed by elections. He has agreed to assist in the “economic rehabilitation” of North Vietnam as well, Packard says. “I do not know how any American who wants to understand the situation could fail to support the President’s position on negotiation. Those who do not support the President’s position on negotiation are saying in effect that they want to sell the people of South Vietnam down the river to the Communists.”


Nixon’s second course, Packard explains, was to provide an alternative in case negotiations failed. “This is what is called ‘Vietnamization.’ – “The plan to help the South Vietnamese learn to defend themselves. The first phase of Vietnamization was building South Vietnam’s ground forces and accelerating pacification and economic development. That phase is now nearly completed and has been very successful. So successful that we will have 480,000 fewer men and women in Vietnam on May 1st than we had on January 20, 1969 when President Nixon took office….If the programs Secretary Laird and I have established are supported by the Congress, the South Vietnamese will soon have adequate air capability as well as adequate ground capability to defend themselves.”


Packard mentions the recent North Vietnam offensive. He says “This new offensive was made possible because [the] Soviets supplied North Vietnam with heavy equipment, tanks, large field guns, heavy anti-aircraft equipment of the type needed to mount an invasion of the South.”


“There is one thing about this whole situation that never seems to be understood– yet it is so elementary – if the North Vietnamese would simply go home from South Vietnam, from Cambodia and Laos, this whole war would be ended tomorrow. Yet the opponents of President Nixon’s policies encourage them to stay and thereby encourage the war to continue.”


Leaving Vietnam, Packard talks about  the President’s “important and exciting new foreign policy.”


“In 1969, when the Nixon Administration took office, there was clearly a pressing need for a new foreign policy. We immediately began to re-evaluate our system of worldwide commitments, and after much analysis and evaluation of options, a new foreign policy began to evolve. It boils down to three important elements. First, it requires our friends and allies around the world to carry a larger share of the burden for their security – both in monetary cost and in manpower. Second, it proposes that we attempt, through negotiation, to reduce the points of friction and reduce the possibility of confrontation. Third, it demands we remain strong, since only from strength can we negotiate effectively. These three pillars form the core of the Nixon doctrine.”



Packard talks about each of these pillars. In defense of asking our friends and allies to share the burden of defense he says that “America has been carrying an unreasonable share of the free world’s defense. In 1968 the United States spent 9.5% of its GNP on defense. The same year Germany spent 2.9% and Japan spent less than 1%.”


“Our allies in both Europe and the Far East have made remarkable economic progress, and they should bear a larger share of the free world’s defense.”


“Next, let’s look at negotiation, the second pillar of the Nixon doctrine. Let me make clear that negotiation is not a codeword for capitulation.”


“Remarkable economic progress in both Western Europe and the Pacific rim permits our allies greater independence of action. And the Communist world, fractured by the Sino-Soviet rift, shows a similar trend towards national self-assertiveness in foreign policy.


“Exploiting this greater flexibility in the world situation, we have reached agreements with the Soviet Union on Berlin, germ warfare, and the prohibition of nuclear weapons on ocean seabed.


“The President has gone to China. And in the Middle East fighting has been replaced with discussions moving toward serious negotiations.


“The third pillar of the Nixon Doctrine, and the most important, is military strength, I say ‘most important’ because, without strength, negotiation with the Communists would be nothing more than capitulation, and burden-sharing would mean nothing more than walking away from our friends and allies.


“As Secretary Laird and I worked on planning our future military forces we were keenly aware of the need of America to remain strong. We recognized this country had been carrying too large a share of the defense burden for the free world, and we recognized the legitimate need for a larger share of federal resources to be allocated to domestic needs of the country.


“We did make substantial reductions in the share of the U.S. Gross National Product required for defense. In fiscal 1973 defense will require only 6.5% of GNP, the lowest drain on our economy in over twenty years. Down three full percentage points from the 9.5% defense took in 1968.


“At the same time we took major steps to improve our strategic nuclear forces. Against great opposition from the liberal Democrats in the Congress we went ahead with the ABM, with the MIRV and other programs which have assured that we have adequate nuclear strength, not only today, but on into the future.”


“We have also moved ahead with many other important new weapons programs during the past three years as we reduced our military manpower under the policy of the Nixon Doctrine. I can say to you without qualification – if the Congress supports the defense programs we have included in the FY 1973 budget, America will have the military strength to support the Nixon Doctrine throughout the decade of the 1970s and on into the decade of the 1980s.


“Frankly. I think that this country would be in serious trouble if we didn’t have a fighter like Dick Nixon running the show. Isolationism, which seems to be what the Democrats want, may have had some merits in the 1920s. In the 1970s withdrawal of America from the world scene would be catastrophic to the cause of peace. At home, the Democrats have set their hearts on a massive new load of spending schemes – ranging from nationalized health insurance to a WPA-type program for unemployed workers.”


“Skilled and tenacious men are working to break down our military strength around the world and to build up a collectivist state at home. To resist them, we need a fighter on our side. To resist them we need another four years of Richard Nixon in the White House.”


4/20/72, Copy of printed program for the United Republican Finance Committee dinner.

4/21/72, Copy of clipping from San Francisco Chronicle, 4/21/72  covering Packard’s speech

3/2/72, Letter to Packard from Robert R. Wood, Chairman Republican Central Committee

5/4/72, Complimentary letter to Packard from William L. Keady



Box 3, Folder 27 – General speeches


April 24, 1972, American Business Press, Silver Quill Award, Puerto Rico


4/24/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech with extensive handwritten notations and additions by him.


Packard starts out saying he was tempted to tell the audience about some of his “adventures in the jungles of Washington bureaucracy…about the dangers of excessive civilian meddling in the affairs of the military, about the need for military to put a high career priority on procurement problems, and so on….


“I have seriously considered telling something about the current situation in Vietnam, why it is essential for the President to respond – as he has responded – to the Soviet supported invasion by North Vietnam across the DMZ [demilitarized zone], and across the western border of South Vietnam. To tell you something that needs to be said again and again – If the North Vietnamese would simply go home – simply leave from South Vietnam, from Cambodia and from Laos, this war would be over tomorrow. But they will not go home as long as they have substantial support from many people in America – including elected officials and candidates for high office.”


Instead of the above, however, Packard says he has decided to talk about “the free enterprise system…in the context of the whole of American society.”


He says he wants to talk about this subject because he sees “a continuing erosion of our freedom in business and industry,” and, he judges, “the press feels put upon in this regard, as well.”


Packard says he has noticed that their “award describes America as a country which guarantees freedom of the press and freedom of enterprise.” And he says that “no society can be truly free unless both freedom in economic enterprise and freedom in political enterprise, of which journalism is one branch, are guaranteed. A blow at one will inevitably be a blow at the other.


“There are all too many people,” Packard continues, “including journalists, who do not understand the indivisibility of freedom. They imagine that governments can meddle in the economy without ultimately abridging political freedoms. As a matter of fact, the very left-wingers peddling this line are now feeling the error of their ways most acutely.”


In support of this last statement, Packard describes a situation at “Stanford University, where I was a Board member before leaving for the Pentagon. [At Stanford] there was recently a debate on whether to permit military recruiting on campus. Many faculty opposed such recruiting. But they did not oppose the tens of millions of dollars a year Stanford receives from the Federal Government; money which would be withdrawn if military recruiting were banned.


“And yet, they do not seem to have learned their lesson. Who do you think are now the loudest in proclaiming that universities need vast amounts of Federal aid for research into domestic problems – for scholarships for minorities, and for professorships in minority studies? So many of our left-wing intellectuals seem to think they can have it both ways: public money, but no public control. Well, they are learning the hard way what we believers in free enterprise have been saying all along: Federal aid means Federal control.”


Packard says the choice to refuse Federal aid – and thereby avoid Federal control, “is a desirable course wherever possible….The trouble is that Federal control has expanded much faster and much further than Federal aid. The tenor of the times is expanding Federal control. I am sure the expansion can not be stopped, but I do believe it can and should be slowed – better directed and made more constructive. The way to do this – and I believe the only way – is through better self discipline by the people involved and better leadership from the people involved – the business community, the publishing community, and indeed, all other private communities of our society.”


. “As I have said many times to my friends in [the defense] industry, if you don’t want a Senator Proxmire to chastize [sic] you for a C-5A program, don’t screw up the program so you deserve to be chastized. [sic]


“That is the lesson we in business and industry have not learned very well. Ralph Nader would not have enough credibility to get an audience if there was really no merit to his complaints. The environmentalists would have little influence if they were entirely wrong in what the say. The critics of the press could be ignored or would cease to exist if the press were, in fact, beyond criticism.”


Packard says he thinks “the increased criticism of business, at least in part, is the direct result of a lack of sufficient social awareness in the business community. I think that there are a number of reasons that businessmen resist [the] idea that they have social responsibilities, but I would like to point out these very same businessmen are the first people to spend lots of their free time helping out the lady down the street who just became a widow, or taking the kids next door on a camping trip while their father is in the hospital.”


Packard says he realizes “what is called a socially responsible activity is always changing….While perhaps exasperating, these shifts are natural. The needs of society change; as soon as society has conquered a certain problem, such as poor working conditions or inadequate higher education, it moves on to another problem. The businessman who fails to keep up with the trends of thought in society does so at his own risk, and, I might add, at the risk of society. The businessman, as we say in engineering, gets ahead of the power curve so he has some chance to direct its course instead of just letting it drag him along.”


“Businessmen must find ways by which they can help guide the overall thinking on a social issue. Take, for example, the environment. Already, we see two distinct lines of thought emerging: the one says that technology can be used to cure the ills created by technology; the other says virtually the opposite: that we should dramatically cut back our whole productive mechanism. The thoughtful businessman is better able than most so-called environmentalists to make an intelligent judgment on this score. How difficult it will be to clean up waste? Are new technologies designed to clean up waste likely to generate their own problems? How effectively could new low-polluting products replace what we have become accustomed to; in what time period and at what cost?


“Another reason for resisting the idea of social responsibility is a lack of clear guide lines among their colleagues within each industry as to what kind of behavior is proper and right, such as those codes of ethics that exist in the medical and legal professions. Naturally, without such guidelines the competitive forces of business discourage expensive exercises in social responsibility. For example, a steelmaker will be highly reluctant to undertake costly plant changes, thereby driving up his prices, to clean up his waste if he is not confident that such steps are being taken throughout the industry. One obvious solution to this – closer consultation among competitors over environmental issues – is currently discouraged by anti-trust laws. But this is a subject which should be followed up.”


“And finally, I suspect that much resistance to ‘social responsibility’ can be blamed on the way the extremist reformers push their ideas. When a Ralph Nader or a William Proxmire talk about business responsibility, he sounds like a vindictive prosecuting attorney rather than a friend asking for cooperation.


“ I must confess that I sympathize with businessmen who feel this way. I suspect that many corporate critics who tell business what should be their minority quotas, or emission level standards, or whatever, are not only anti-business, but are also hypocritical. They would be the first to squawk if you suggested that Harvard or Yale University has a social responsibility to produce certain kinds of young men and women. Can you imagine the liberal professors at Harvard, so eager to impose their particular standards of social progress on GM or General Foods, agreeing to a group of businessmen establishing measurements for a liberally educated undergraduate?


“ I want to say that I am very concerned about recent proposals to attempt to influence the business conscience by Universities through their investment portfolio. I doubt that General Motors or U.S. Steel could care less about whether or not Yale holds their stock – I am sure it would make no difference to the Hewlett-Packard Co.  If these Universities refuse to hold stock they would clearly also have to refuse to accept contributions from these corporations. To one who has worked very hard over the last decade to encourage more corporate support for higher education this would be a disappointing turn of events indeed.


“These crusaders seem bent on looking for villains and scapegoats. For example, all too many ecologists blame businessmen for pollution and proceed to argue that businesses should pay, out of their profits, to clean up the environment. They argue that private enterprise can not, because of its blind adherence to the profit motive, respond to these priority needs of our society. Such anti-free enterprise talk is nonsense.”


“However, despite all their shortcomings, these reformers are talking about issues which the whole country is thinking about. If they were not describing life as a lot of people see it, they would not receive the attention they do. We businessmen must listen to them for the general directions they see in society’s thinking.”


“However, we should be most wary about their particular prescriptions. Everyone in this room knows that if you want something done and you want it done well and fast, there is one segment of our society  to turn to: private enterprise. Once society has decided on general goals, free enterprise should have as much to do in implementing the goals as possible. It is imperative, therefore that businessmen take the lead in formulating and carrying out solutions to society’s problems. If government gets there first, salvaging the environment, or whatever, the task will become mired in red tape and duplication of effort and sloth. And, at the same time, additional controls will be imposed on the private sector.


“You in this room have a unique opportunity to help our business community understand the importance of responding to social issues. As publishers to the business world, you are key opinion molders of our free enterprise system. With the degree of objectivity which good publishers and reporters bring to their work, you can look at the broader picture. You can see that, while social responsibility may pose short-run inconveniences, it is very much in the long-run interests of American businessmen. You may not be thanked tomorrow for your efforts, but you will know that you helped to keep business in the vanguard of the American conscience where it must be if it is to remain free.


“Thank you.”


Undated, Copy of a booklet titled What is the Silver Quill?

2/4/70, Copy of the program from a previous award dinner

4/23/72, Advance registration for the American Business Press Eighth Spring Meeting

4/24/72, Copy of the program for the dinner presenting the award to Packard


4/3/72, Press release from ABP announcing the forthcoming award to Packard

4/23/72, Announcement from ABP to all attendees giving travel details

4/24/72, Press release from ABP covering award to Packard

1/31/72,  Internal HP memo from Russ Berg to Bob Boniface saying the ABP would like to present the Silver Quill Award to Packard.

1/31/72, Letter to Packard from Charles Mill of ABP describing the award and hope that Packard would be willing to receive it.

2/10/72, Copy of a letter to Charles Mill from Packard saying he would be pleased to accept the award

2/16/72, Copy of a letter to Packard from Charles Mill saying he is delighted Packard is willing to receive the award and enclosing some background material

3/17/72, Letter to Packard from William O’Donnell of ABP, asking for the name of the person with whom they can work on details Packard’s participation in the award dinner

3/20/72, Copy of a letter to William O’Donnell from Margaret Paull sending biographical material

4/14/72, Copy of a letter to Charles Mill from Melvin Laird, saying he will be unable to attend the award dinner and describing Packard’s contributions to the Department of Defense

4/19/72, Letter from President Nixon to Packard saying “It pleased me greatly to know that the American Business Press is presenting its Silver Quill Award to you. Your enduring achievements on behalf of our national defense have set standards which will be a source of strength and inspiration for all who follow you.”

4/20/72, Letter to Packard from William O’Donnell, ABP, saying they are looking forward to Packard’s arrival in Puerto Rico, and discussing local transportation arrangements.

4/25/72, Clipping form Palo Alto Times covering Packard’s speech




Box 3, Folder 28 – General speeches


April 28, 1972, The Businessman as a Public Official, San Francisco, CA


Packard was one of a panel of speakers at this Conference sponsored by the University of California School of Business Administration.


4/28/72, Set of 3×5” cards upon which Packard wrote some notes for his remarks. Hs notes are in brief outline form.


“Wide range of both private enterprises – corporate officials, government clerk – cabinet secretary


“Impression of government works because there are thousands of dedicated public servants – not because of the wisdom of the Congress or the elected and appointed officials.


“Where was my experience [in business] useful [in the DOD]: administration, decision making, technical knowledge


“Where was my experience of no value: dealing with Congress, good committees, bad committees; dealing with the public, simply had not done.


“Some problems: conflict of interest. Some useful programs, executive interchange


“Businessmen are no more able to reform government than anyone else.


“Did I learn anything useful?


3/8/72, Letter to Packard from Richard H. Holton, Dean School of Business Administration, discussing arrangements for the conference. A copy of the typewritten program is attached.

4/20/72, Letter to Packard from Dean Holton, saying they plan to tape the talks

4/24/72, Letter to Packard from Donald Fraser, member of the Executive Committee of the Business School, saying he will be Packard’s host contact during the conference



Box 3, Folder 29 – General Speeches


May 1, 1972, Investing in America, San Francisco, CA


5/1/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech


Since the organization, Invest-In-America, is directed primarily at educating young people about the importance of savings and corporate profits, Packard tells his audience  he will direct his comments to the young students invited to attend – since “I found it very difficult to think of anything I could say today that most of you do not already know.”


“What do we mean by ‘Invest-In-America?’ Packard asks. “Fundamentally, it means that we are working to promote the importance of the concept that individuals in America have the opportunity to invest their money…and also their time and energy and knowledge in enterprises of their personal choice.” Packard makes it clear that “This investment opportunity is not unique to America – it is also found in all countries which have not adopted the communist philosophy. The freedom of individuals to have the choice of investment is one of the important – indeed essential – freedoms of America and the entire free world.


“This option is not available to people in Communist countries. They are not allowed to own anything of substance, and no part of the productive establishment. In fact, an individual in those countries cannot own his own home, unless he has built it himself. These peoples have been sold the phony bill of goods that the productive establishment of their country belongs to the people – but nothing could be further from the truth. They cannot sell their share, not can they buy a larger share. Under Communism there is no such thing as ownership in the sense that the individual has anything to say about that share of the business or industry that supposedly belong to him as ‘one of the people.’ The people have no voice in how the productive establishment is to be operated.


Packard explains that freedom to invest is important “to provide the capital for our growing economy. These investments have a direct relationship to economic growth and progress.” And he adds that “growth is necessary if our country is to remain economically strong – an absolute must if we are to provide leadership in attaining the goals of peace and understanding among the countries of the world. Economic growth is also necessary if we are to continue our battle to improve the standards of living for every American. Economic growth means that there will be more dollars available to the hundreds and hundreds of charitable organizations and institutions throughout America who are working on the problems of the elderly, the disadvantaged, the handicapped. And, of course, economic growth on a national scale means economic growth on the individual scale, through improved earnings and benefits, and through the growth of personal investment.”


Packard also emphasizes the importance of freedom of investment of becoming a “part of the action in our economy….you can become, as a stockholder, a partner in the business you have chosen to invest in….


“It is through this process that millions of people have been able to participate in and benefit from the growth and success of the American economy on an individual basis.”


Packard tells how people in America can obtain financing for their business enterprises. “Decisions can be made by the people who will be able to implement those decisions and succeed or fail on the decisions they have made.


“Why is that important?,” Packard asks. “Why can’t a central authority decide what is to be produced and who is to produce it?…Wouldn’t it allow the resources of society to be allocated so as to produce on the most efficient basis the things the society needs.?


“The problem here,” Packard responds, “is that no one in a position of central authority, which would be the government, is that smart.”


As evidence,…”compare the range of products available at any shopping center in America with those available in any shop in Russia.”


Packard gives what he feels are the two most important benefits from a private investment economy – “First, it gives every American an opportunity to participate on a personal basis in our economic growth. Secondly, the economy is made more responsive to the needs and desires of the individual in our society through the individual investment process. It is an automatic and very efficient selection system. If you can build a better mousetrap you will be a success – and if you have this ability.”


Packard suggests there are other kinds of investments which have made America great. It is not just the stock or bonds you buy – or the money you put in a savings account and which in turn can be invested in a productive endeavor – it is also the time and energy and knowledge of millions of people which has been invested in endeavors of public service that have helped make America the great country it is today.”


“What is needed are businessmen, financiers, writers, and all sorts of professionals using their special talents, each should spend enough time to become familiar and sympathetic with the needs not only of a certain problem area – say fighting cancer

–but of the total organization. This would become his “other business.”


“I’d like to emphasize that I think the word ‘charity’ is a misnomer. The money and the time given to so-called charitable enterprises is in a very real sense investing in America. The value of this great personal investment by Americans of their substance, their time, and their talent is probably beyond measure. Whatever its measure, it is without any doubt becoming more important as our society becomes more complex.”


“I would like to say a word about the importance of a favorable climate to this investment process. Incentives to investment have been built into the tax laws—special rates for taxing capital gains, investment credit, special depreciation allowances. These special tax considerations have done much to make a high private investment rate possible in America. These tax provisions have brought about business expansion, more jobs, and better and lower cost products than would have been possible otherwise. Recently we have seen the emergence of a tax reform movement—an issue receiving considerable attention during the current wave of political campaigning. The people who are now talking about tax reform are talking mainly about closing so-called loopholes. These so-called loopholes they are talking about closing include mainly those incentives that have been built to encourage investment in America. The tax provisions for capital gains is one of the greatest incentives to invest in America. The reformers propose to apply a full tax on capital gains. This means that if someone in the 60% tax bracket sells a stock, he must pay 60% tax on his capital gains rather than 25%. I’m sure you can see the effect this would have on the free flow of capital.”


Packard goes on to depletion allowances, saying they “are provided as an incentive for investment in exploration and development and have played a crucial role in insuring that we have the natural resources, the necessary gas and oil, and other natural resources to supply our expanding economy. Elimination of this allowance would undoubtedly increase our reliance on imports at a time when our balance of trade is already in trouble.


“The Revenue Act of 1971 restored the investment credit, expanded deductions for charitable giving and was generally constructive to private investment. The tax reform proposals now advocated by the leading Democratic candidates would roll back these gains as well as other longstanding incentives to private investment. The proposed tax reform would be a severe blow to investing in America.


“Economic growth is part and parcel of the spirit of progress, exploration, and adventure that pervades the Western world. The spirit that encourages our investment in tomorrow is the same that makes us want to go to the moon or explore the mysteries of the atom, or inquire into the basic life processes. It is the spirit of American free enterprise.


“Economic growth gives us something to look forward to, to work for. It lets us anticipate a better life, with the hope and goal of an ever-improving standard of living and expansion of opportunities for all Americans.


“The stakes of American free enterprise are the stakes of investment in America. For efforts to keep alive this great and important tradition, I salute you.


“Thank you.”


2/3/72, Letter to Packard from H. J. Haynes, President Standard  Oil Company of California, inviting Packard to speak at the 18th annual Invest-In-America luncheon. Attachments give background information

2/23/72, Copy of a letter to H. J. Haynes from Packard, accepting the invitation.

2/29/72, Letter to Packard from H. J. Haynes saying he is delighted that Packard has accepted their invitation to speak

4/12/72,  Copy of the formal invitation to the luncheon, and printed program

5/1/72, Letter to Packard from H. J. Haynes thanking Packard for his “most realistic presentation at the luncheon

5/2/72, Letter to Packard from Robert R. Gros asking for a copy of Packard’s speech which he wants to send to the Freedoms Foundation

5/4/72, Copy of a letter to the Freedoms Foundation from Ivy Lee, Jr. sending them a copy of Packard’s speech

5/11/72, Letter to Packard from Ivy Lee Jr. enclosing photographs taken at the luncheon

5/2/72, Clipping from the San Francisco Chronicle covering Packard’s speech



Box 3, Folder 30 – General Speeches


May 10, 1972 Invest in America, Annual Achievement Banquet, San Jose State College, CA


In the words of the School “The primary purpose of the banquet is to present awards to deserving business students. Each of the seven departments of the School selects students, who, on the basis of certain qualifications, have been nominated to receive either a financial award or a plaque, or similar item of recognition, donated by various local and national organizations or corporations.”


5/10/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech


Packard says he is pleased “to be speaking before a group of young men and women who are embarking on a career in business.” He says his own career in business has been challenging and exciting and he is confident theirs will be too….”America is teeming with opportunities for ambitious young businessmen and businesswomen.”


Packard wonders why young people sometimes think careers in business are considered ‘boring’ or ‘ignoble.’ “It might seem that there are some necessary

projects which can only be performed by government, such as pollution control. But the fact is, anything as big as pollution control cannot be handled by government alone. Strong control would bring chaos and inertia to the work necessary to solve the problems of pollution. There would be chaos, because there are simply too many millions of day-to-day decisions –affecting jobs, paychecks and progress in other areas, as well as the environment – for Washington bureaucrats to handle the problem intelligently. And there would be inertia, because once Americans think Uncle Sam will do the job, they forget their own responsibilities.”


“Businessmen are perhaps the most important group of private citizens that should involve themselves in social efforts such as the pollution battle.” Explaining this statement, he says businessmen would have a better practical  understanding of the technology required, would have a better appreciation of the value of the dollar, and would have more flexibility, allowing him to try alternatives and switch to the best one.


“By contrast, the bureaucrat…cannot use funds for other than legislated purposes. Even if he can save or generate money through above-average efficiency….The result is to discourage new, more effective programs and to perpetuate old programs, however inefficient they may be.”


Packard also feels the businessman “can be more objective than the politician in appraising social action programs. Trained in the hard realities of profit-and-loss statements, he will more likely scrutinize the effectiveness of a given program and be less swayed by its lofty-sounding, if unattainable, goals.”


“Nowhere is the need for efficient administrators more evident than in the Defense Department. The enormous size of the operation, the massive procurement problems, and the importance of national security makes the pentagon a prime candidate for business management techniques.”


Packard says when he and Mel  Laird first came to the Defense Department they found many problems – cost over-runs in procurement, poor communications, poor intelligence, scandals, and friction in the chain of command.


“Yet, as I worked with the people in the Department, I found them to be as capable individuals as you would find in the best business organizations of the country.”


“Why, then, were there so many management problems? The answer, in my opinion, is very simple. Managing the department of defense is a political job as well as a business management job. Secretary Laird and I were able to bring about some improvements in the management of the Department during the past few years because he could handle the political side, while I could give some attention to the management side.”


Packard reports that they “were able to make some major strides forward in procurement. We improved the training, selection, and recognition of procurement officers. We established a new procurement school. We worked out the fly-before-you-buy concept, under which costs of development are separated out from costs of production.”


“Unhappily, however, I must report that Congressional meddling in Pentagon affairs prohibited us from taking many other much-needed steps. There were, as always, Congressmen fighting to bring bases and contracts to their home districts. And there was the new phenomena of left-wing Congressmen finding fault with all major new weapons systems, whatever their merits or however efficient they might be.”


“And these fault finders spoke not with a spirit of constructive criticism, but with the belligerency of headline-hungry opportunists. Time and time again, they distorted facts and used them out of context, simply to make a point that might embarrass the military and hit the front pages. During the three years I spent in the Pentagon these critics did not bring to light a single problem that was not already well understood and being worked on by competent professional people.”


“And yet they certainly did contribute to inefficiency in the Defense Department. We wasted thousands of man hours responding to Congressional interrogations – which were inspired to impress the people back home, not to contribute to the solution of a problem.”


“I further regret to say that uninformed Congressional criticism is not limited to management problems in the Pentagon. It extends to our overall foreign policy, and in recent months has taken on an ominously isolationist tone. Look, for example, at the recent Senate vote to kill the Foreign Aid program overnight, with no provisions to effectively phase out the program, or provide for adequate substitutes.”


“Perhaps the most dramatic evidence of the current isolationist fever is the defense platform of senator George McGovern. McGovern, remember, currently leads the democratic field in terms of committed delegates. And, after being dismissed a scant two months ago as a splinter candidate, now has a very good chance of winning the Democratic presidential nomination.


“He would cut the Marine Corps from 200,000 to 140,000 by 1975. He would recommend that the Air Force be cut from 750,000 to 475,000. Deployment of the SAFEGUARD system would be halted. The development of the B-1 bomber, a very important element of our future strategic nuclear capability, also would be halted he would stop the F15 development, which is the most important program we have to keep ahead of the Soviets in tactical air power.


“In short, Senator McGovern wold disarm the United States and gamble the future of our country on the goodwill of the Soviet Union.


“Senators aren’t the only ones whose irrationality is pushing America towards isolationism. While I was in Washington, I heard scientists use their reputations gained in unrelated fields to influence legislation to stultify national defense programs—particularly the all-important nuclear programs. I heard distinguished newsmen favor Hanoi, Moscow, and New Delhi over America in their reporting. I heard mindless criticism flooding in from academe.


Packard anticipates that some may ask what is wrong with isolating ourselves from the world?


“The answer to this is that we no longer live in the 1920s. We can no longer shut out the world. If we do not actively pursue peace around the world, war originating elsewhere in the world will end up dragging us in, as they have in the past.” And Packard recalls  Neville Chamberlain coming back from Munich with an agreement which was to be ‘Peace in Our time’ in 1938.”


“And even if we do steer clear of war, a hostile power dominating Europe and controlling the Middle East, the Indian Ocean, and the western shores of the Pacific, would inevitably limit our ability to contribute political, economic, and cultural leadership to other countries around the world.


“Let there be no doubt that a hostile power does threaten to dominate both Europe and these other important areas of the world. I am referring, of course, to the Soviet Union.”


“While the Soviet Union is probably not realistically planning all-out war against either western Europe or the United States, it undoubtedly does expect to reap political and strategic gains from its recent arms build-up.”


“We can no longer be sure we could deter the Soviets in the way we did during the 1962 Cuban Missile crises.


“The Soviets increasing naval strength will give them much greater power and flexibility in many areas of the world. The Eastern Mediterranean is perhaps the most critical. But the Indian Ocean and the Western Pacific are areas where they could become the dominant power….In simple terms, if we withdraw from the world, the Soviets will become the dominant power in the world and we will become a second-rate nation.


“While we would not necessarily face an immediate Communist take-over at home, we would become, like other nations that have recently withdrawn from world affairs, a has-been nation. I hope that’s not the kind of a future you young people want to look forward to.”


Packard explains that this series of events would have economic repercussions as well. “All sorts of initiatives, described as efforts to restrict ‘U.S. Imperialism,’ would whittle away at our international commerce. Without a strong military to rely on, we would be forced to yield again and again.


“This would do serious harm to our economy. Many of our key industries depend heavily on foreign trade. Many of our natural resources come from abroad, and sole reliance on domestic sources would quickly deplete our reserves. Our shipping and air transport industries, of course, are highly dependent on a high level of foreign trade, and our high technology industries rely heavily on exports for sales.”


“It is folly to pretend, as so many politicians do, that we can isolate ourselves from the world without catastrophic effects to our national security, our economic well-being and, even more fundamentally, our national spirit.


“I say ‘our national spirit’ because the greatness of America has always been the spirit of growth, development, adventure, and search for new horizons. This is the soul of America, and it is also the soul of youth. Those who would suffer most, if we cannot shed our national introspection, will be the young people of America. Young people, who are just beginning their lives and want the chance to grow with their country—the same chance their parents and granPackardarents had. I hope, therefore, that you in this room—particularly you students—will join with those of us fighting to keep America self-confident, a leader and a participant in the expanding opportunities of all the world.


“Thank you for your interest and attention.”


5/10/72, Printed program for the Fourteenth Annual Achievement Banquet Program

5/10/72, Printed brochure about the School of Business

2/11/72, Letter to Packard from George Stauss, Professor, San Jose State College, inviting Packard to be the guest speaker at their Annual Achievement Banquet

2/22/72, Copy of a letter from Packard to George Stauss accepting the invitation

3/7/72, Letter to Packard giving details of the banquet

4/30/72, Clipping from the San Jose Mercury News saying Packard is to speak to Business School Grads

5/4/72, Internal HP memorandum from Security Chief Dick Coulter to Packard telling him that the Santa Clara Police expect some 300 students and non-students to hold a ‘mock trial’ in an attempt to disrupt his speaking. The memo discusses security for transporting Packard to and from the banquet.


5/9/72,  Memo from Dick Coulter to Margaret Paull discussing further security details

5/10/72, Typed statement which appears to have been written (and perhaps spoken at the banquet) by John H. Bunzel, President of San Jose State College. The statement is his reply to an  accusation that he brings disgrace to himself and the College by associating with David Packard, ‘a man who has blood on his hands.’

5/10/72, Handwritten letter to Packard from  a Tom Gautner enclosing a “Wanted poster” circulated by protesters. The letter wishes Packard well.

5/11/72, Clipping from the San Jose Mercury News covering Packard’s speech

5/12/72, Letter to Packard from George Stauss thanking him taking ‘such a personal interest in our business students at our recent Achievement Banquet.’

5/15/72, Letter to Packard from Millburn D. Wright, Dean of the School of Business, thanking him for speaking at their banquet.

6/30/72, Copy of a letter from Packard to Marlene Stauss thanking her for making him a ‘special’ tie, and saying he “appreciates it very much.”

Undated, Newspaper clipping telling of Packard’s forthcoming speech

Undated, More samples of protest flyers



Box 3, Folder 31 – General speeches


May 18, 1972, Military Affairs Luncheon, San Francisco, CA, Chamber of Commerce


5/18/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech


“We are gathered here today to honor the men and women who serve America in the uniform of their country….They are great  people, and they deserve and need the understanding and support of every loyal American.”


Packard says he was “most impressed” with the men and women in the Armed Forces while he was at the Pentagon – with their efficiency, their dedication. “It is often fashionable to characterize men who make a career of the military as unable to do anything else. [They] seem to believe…that military service is not noble, and therefore attracts people for only the basest reasons. This is simply not true. Most soldiers, particularly those who devote their lives to the military, believe strongly in the need for and the importance of the security of our country. They know that America must remain strong if America is to remain free.”


Packard cites many other reasons why men and women are attracted to military life – the outdoor life, being in an organization which has precision and efficiency, professional opportunities such engineering, flying, navigation, communications.


“People trying to downgrade the calibre [sic] of our servicemen often point to drug and race problems in Vietnam, and many of our newspapers are all too happy to play up these themes. But how often do we read about the winners of medals for heroism, or the soldiers in Vietnam who work off-hours to help teach Vietnamese kids English or help Vietnamese families build better houses?”


Packard recalls that Senator Fulbright charged that American troops were turning Saigon into a brothel. “But how much news coverage has been given to the lasting friendships developed between Americans and Vietnamese? Or about the foreign girls American soldiers marry during their overseas tours?”


Packard says he is “sickened”  when he hears of “spoiled young elitists on our college campuses demonstrating against President Nixon’s efforts to resist blatant aggression. And even those students who only circulate petitions –like the one to cut off all supplies to our men who are in Vietnam – are not much better. They hurt our troops’ morale and encourage the North Vietnamese to continue their aggression…perhaps causing irreparable damage…to our national security.”


“A particularly regrettable result of student dissent is the removal of ROTC programs from many of our so-called prestige colleges. These ROTC programs were providing some of our best young officers – men who could eventually move to the highest levels. And now that we are moving to a smaller Army, it becomes increasingly important that our leaders be the best available; quality must substitute for quantity.


“Our colleges and universities have a responsibility to contribute to the quality of training and leadership of our Armed forces. Those that do not, deserve the support of neither the Federal Government nor the general public.


“Personally, I have nothing but contempt for the college and university Presidents who approved the removal of ROTC from their compuses. I do not exempt Stanford from this judgment, despite all the time, energy, and substance I have devoted to my Alma Mater.”


Before leaving the subject of ROTC, Packard points out that “certain institutions are considering reinstating ROTC.” And he adds that “during the last three years, when ROTC programs were being thrown off 38 of the ‘elite’ universities, 58 new ROTC programs were established at other colleges – particularly in the West and the South. It would seem that, once again it has been demonstrated that the great common sense of the country is not very well represented at the Harvards, the Yales, and the Stanfords.”


Packard says there are other places where “irrationality over the military” can be found – “emotional anti-military harangues from columnists, liberal Congressmen and others.”

Packard feels “disenchantment with the Vietnamese war underlies much of this anti-military fervor. Many Americans – disenchanted with the war and puzzled as to what went wrong – turned against the military as the most visible symbol of our problems in Vietnam. While unfair, at least this reaction is rooted in genuine bewilderment.


“But there is another source of anti-military rhetoric which is nowhere near as innocent. And that is the liberals who got us into the war in the first lace. Having seen the war going badly, they looked for a scapegoat that would turn attention away from their failures. The military, highly visible and misunderstood by many Americans, was the obvious target.


“Incidents such as My Lai fell right into the critics’ hands. For at My Lai the military clearly abused their power. The liberal line, peddled by politicians and press alike, tended to downplay the extreme provocations Calley faced and the fact that none of our other officers, despite similar provocations, have overreacted. Instead, we heard over and over about alleged cover-ups and the obvious brutality of the killings. The message was loud and clear: ‘The military is out of control, we liberals who started this war wash our hands of it.’


“In point of fact, of course, far from getting out of control, our soldiers in Vietnam have been the victims of excessive civilian controls. Our political leaders permitted Cambodia to be used as a sanctuary of the North Vietnamese. Prior to 1970 the Communists were allowed to bring supplies through the Port of Sihanoukville and establish bases 35 miles from Saigon and all along the border of south Vietnam.”


“Ground action to cut the HO Chi Min trail was avoided and many other constraints were placed on our military people in Vietnam.


“There were reasons for this civilian control and reasons why specific actions were taken or were not taken. When they did not work out, however, it is not the military that should be given the blame.”


Packard refers to critics who have started “peddling the line that our war effort is aggressive, aimed not at preserving world peace but at securing bases, winning economic gains, or even giving our soldiers the sheer joy of killing.” He finds the last idea “simply beyond belief.”


“As to the notion that we seek some sort of permanent economic or territorial advantage, America’s record during the twentieth century speaks for itself. Despite winning three wars, we have neither sought nor gained a single economic concession or permanent territorial gain. In striking contrast, wealth and territory were central war aims of the totalitarian powers we fought against.


“Our goal has been simple enough: lasting peace. We have been willing to spend hundreds of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars to achieve this simple goal.”


But Packard says he regrets that “we do not seem to have learned the first lesson of international politics: military strength and an active foreign policy are necessary to achieve a lasting peace. After World War I, which might have been prevented by active American diplomacy, we were pulled into another great war, which firm resistance to early Nazi aggression could have prevented. After World War II, we brought all our troops home and excluded vital segments of the Asian rim from our defense perimeter. This folly led to the Korean war and confrontation with the Soviet Union in eastern and southeastern Europe.


“Now many Americans would have us once again withdraw from world affairs and a strong defense posture. What new war would this bring? I would like to ask.


“In this day and age, I believe that the best chance the world has to limit the extent of war is for the leading nations of the world to be strong enough to deter attacks upon each other and then be willing to cooperate in responsible ways to minimize conflict among the smaller nations of the world.”


“In planning for the future, there are two programs worth special mention. One is to provide for substantial improvements in the responsiveness and survivability of the command and control of our strategic nuclear forces. This program is so urgent that the President requested a supplemental appropriation for the fiscal 1972 budget to accelerate it.


“The other is ULMS (Undersea Long-Range Missile Submarine Force). This program is essential to provide survivable submarine-based missiles to replace our aging Polaris-Poseidon force. The ULMS submarines can be based at home, under the protection of our fleet. Our allies are showing increasing reservations about allowing U.S. nuclear weapons on their territory, and it is therefore prudent to have submarines which can be based at home as soon as possible.


“The Nixon Administration has also been moving ahead on conventional forces.” And he names several weapons systems – the F-15, the Ax, the F-14, the Harrier and the Agile missile. “We increased the Navy shipbuilding budget by some $2 billion, which increases the production of nuclear attack submarines, modern destroyers and frigates. We have two nuclear carriers under construction and have requested funds for the third in the fiscal year 1973 budget.”


“And R and D has been increased. We increased it from $7 billion in 1971 to $7.7 billion this year, and we requested $8.5 billion for fiscal year 1973.”


“ Because of all these efforts, we have been able to bargain from strength, and the results are encouraging. We have reached agreements on Berlin, germ warfare, and the prohibition of nuclear weapons on ocean seabeds.


“We have made progress on the strategic arms limitations talks, and this round of negotiations is a magnificent example of the advantage of bargaining from strength. Our decision to move ahead on ABM and other strategic systems has induced the Soviets to negotiate seriously. Had we taken the advice of certain left-wing Senators and abandoned these projects – in effect, unilaterally disarmed – the Soviets would have been pleased. But they would have had no motivation to work toward an arms limitation agreement with us.


“Unfortunately, we have not yet reached the second requirement for the possibility of permanent world peace – the ability of the superpowers to keep wars from breaking out in smaller countries.


“This, of course, is no easy matter. An increasing number of nations resent what they consider big-power meddling, even when peace is the objective.


“Furthermore, there are fundamental differences between the Soviet Union and the United States which may prevent cooperative peace-keeping. Soviet arms shipments to North Vietnam and provocations in the Middle East testify to the inherent problems in any scheme of superpower peace-keeping.”


“It is important that this support be translated into specific actions that will demonstrate to our soldiers and sailors how much we appreciate them, and how much esteem we have for those who make a career of the military. It will become increasingly important to encourage men and women to stay in the Armed Services as we move to an all-volunteer Army, since the all-volunteer army will eliminate many draft-induced enlistments.”


Packard has some recommendations which members of the audience can do to help: placing veterans in jobs, involving the Presidio personnel in things like parades and other community action projects.


He recommends encouraging reservists, “since our smaller active forces will require a strong and ready reserve.”


“These are just a few suggestions, and I am sure all of you have your own ideas as to how to better recognize the fine young men and women who are serving you and your country.


“Let’s make every day Armed Forces Day!”


5/18/72, Copy of the program for the day’s events

12/27/71, Letter to Packard from Ben Swig, Chairman, Military Affairs Committee, inviting Packard to be the guest speaker at the Chamber of Commerce’s Military Affairs Luncheon.

12/29/71, Copy of a letter from Packard to Ben Swig accepting the invitation to speak.

1/6/71 [sic], Letter to Packard from Ben Swig thanking him for accepting their invitation.

5/12/72, Letter to Packard from Lex J. Byers, Coordinator Military Affairs Luncheon, enclosing ticket for the head table.

5/18/72, Letter to Packard from James M. Gere, a professor at Stanford, saying he shares Packard’s feelings about support for ROTC , and that he has been embarrassed by the actions of some of his colleagues.

5/18/72, Letter to Packard from Finley Carter congratulating him on his speech.

5/19/72, Letter to Packard from Ralph N. Cole, a Stanford grad,  thanking him for his speech. He encloses a copy of a letter to President Richard Lyman of Stanford from himself expressing “dismay and outrage” at President Lyman’s recent letter to President Nixon expressing “dismay and outrage” at the bombing of North Vietnam.

5/20/72, Letter to Packard from Walter M. Morand agreeing with Packard’s point of view. A news clipping is attached.

5/21/72, A handwritten letter to Packard from Bert L. Frescura who says he is an employee of HP, attending Stanford on the Honors Cooperative Program. He says he agrees with Packard’s viewpoint on the ROTC.

5/21/72, Handwritten letter to Packard from Darwin F. Godfrey, saying he was pleased to hear Packard’s comments.

5/21/72, Note to Packard from Archie Brown, saying it was with “deep satisfaction” that he read Packard’s comments.

5/22/72, Letter to Packard from Mark A. Whalen, Rear Admiral U. S. Coast Guard, saying he appreciated the opportunity to hear Packard speak.

5/22/72, Letter to Packard from J. Richard Finnegan saying he was delighted with Packard’s comments and asking for a copy.

5/22/72, Letter to Packard from Robert E. Franck applauding Packard for his speech.

6/7/72, Copy of a letter from Packard to Robert E. Franck thanking him for his letter.

5/23/72, Handwritten note to Packard from George S. Harman, saying it was a pleasure to read Packard’s speech, and enclosing a news clipping.

5/24/72, Letter to Packard from Alfred D. Kirkland agreeing with Packard’s comments.

5/25/72, Letter to Packard from Prentis Hale congratulating Packard on his speech.

5/25/72, Letter to Packard from Edwin Tilton thanking Packard for his speech.

5/30/72, Letter to Packard from Willard G. Houghton congratulating Packard on his thoughts.

6/7/72, Letter to Packard from Allan G. Tate agreeing with his comments


5/18/72, Clipping from Palo Alto Times covering Packard’s speech

5/19/72, Clipping form Stanford Daily reporting on Packard’s speech

5/29/72, Clipping from unnamed newspaper with letters to editor disagreeing with Packard

Undated, Clipping from unnamed paper covering Packard’s speech



Box 3, Folder 32 – General Speeches


May 23, 1972, Annual Awards Luncheon, San Francisco, Jr. Chamber of Commerce


5/23/72, Typed text of Packard’s speech


Saying that there is “a certain exhilaration for young people who have their careers ahead of them”, Packard recalls some of the achievements when HP was starting: building the first building , having a hundred people on the payroll, starting a plant in Germany….


“For nearly two hundred years there have been great opportunities for young people in America …a satisfying life in this free enterprise economy.” He says we face a question as to whether “ these kinds of opportunities [will] continue and be there for your children as well.”


He wonders if we are caught in some “irresistible and irreversible thrust” toward a “people’s democracy” as the revolutionaries and communists say. He says he doesn’t know if the tide we are caught in is irresistible and irreversible, but he says it may become so “and overwhelm our free institutions and destroy our individual freedom unless we take it more seriously and do something about it.”


Packard describes some candidates who are running for office as the ‘people’s candidate.’ “What this means,” he says, “is they want to give the fruits of your labor to the so-called ‘people.’ To the ‘people’ who are protesting in the streets….Where this kind of radical gets elected, he will seek to destroy the opportunity for the accomplishments we are honoring here today.”


Packard also says he is “greatly troubled” by the candidacy of George McGovern, the leading Democratic candidate. “McGovern,” he says, ”would cut thirty billion dollars from the Defense budget. Such a cut would, in effect, disarm America and destroy our opportunity for world leadership. Furthermore it would destroy the jobs of three million people who are working to keep America strong.” He refers to McGovern’s talk of finding jobs for everyone as “old New Deal WPA.”


Packard tells his audience there are two things they and he can do about this situation. “The first is a short term action and is very simple – get out and work for candidates on the local, state, and national level who will fight for the preservation of our free enterprise system.


“The longer term action which the business community must take is to recognize and deal with some of the problems which radical liberals are exploiting. Businessmen can deal effectively with the problems of our society both in their professional role and in what they do in their extra-curricular activities.”


“Many critics charge that business ought to be more ‘responsive to pressing problems,’ that it ought to ‘put people above profits,’ that it ought to develop a ‘social conscience,’ that it ought to ‘put human rights above property rights’ and on and on. My response to such critics is ”how many payrolls did you meet this week? What useful products have you placed in the hands of an overworked housewife or busy businessman?” Packard says business is not “some special interest” divorced from the mainstream of society. “…private enterprise is a remarkable effective mechanism for meeting the basic needs of everyone in our society.” And he mentions supermarkets, automobiles, housing, the garment industry, and he asks “Where is there a country or a system with the standard of living so high? Where is there a country with such a great opportunity for an individual to improve his personal situation?”


So, then, “What is wrong? Why is business vulnerable to criticism and attack? One reason these anti-business attitudes have gained ground, I regret to say, is that all too often businessmen have not behaved like good neighbors. They have put short-term gains ahead of their long-term reputation.”


Packard describes some business people who cheat customers and take advantage the unsophisticated, “Sharksters” he calls them, and says they give all businessmen a bad name. “Doctors and lawyers regulate themselves, and this is the reason they have become known as professionals. When other elements of business and industry impose the same stiff standards on themselves, they will have taken a giant step towards professionalism.


“The responsible businessman also thinks about what special effort he can make to help the community. I like to call this investing in the community. This may be helping a charity—a local college, dance troupe, or hospital. Or it may be something in your own business that represents an extraordinary expense.”


“Investing in the community does not necessarily mean doing what other people tell us needs to be done. It means doing what we can do, in the most responsible way.”


“The point is, let your conscience, not political fads, be your guide to investment in the community.


“If you are contributing substantial money to outside charities, I urge that you contribute your time as well—that you roll up your sleeves and get involved in the management of your favorite charities.”


Packard feels business can bring a fresh perspective to community enterprises, and he gives the example of education. “During the campus demonstrations of the 1960s academic administrator after academic administrator bowed to, and at times encouraged, the rhetoric that breaking windows and heckling speakers are ‘symbolic free speech’ and that a university should be a place of political activism. The result, predictable, was public revulsion with higher education. The natural question was asked everywhere: Why should I pay taxes or make contributions to support rioting?”


Packard says, “Our universities today would be stronger and more widely respected if, during the 1960s, boards of Trustees around the country had exerted control over the day-to-day functioning of our universities.” He acknowledges this would not have been easy, and adds that “you would be amazed at the marvelous arguments university staffs have as to why contributors and Board members should stick to giving money and forget about how their money is being spent”


As another example of how businessmen might contribute to community organizations Packard says “…look at how resistant charities can be to cost-benefit analyses. Many general purpose hospitals are spending vast amounts of money on specialized programs—such as nurse-training—which could be handled much more efficiently at specialist hospitals. Often these services have become an established part of a hospital’s self-image, and a thoroughly objective cost-benefit analysis is never applied.


“Another talent businessmen can bring to charities is setting up quantitative goals. They do this in their own organizations all the times: whether it is market share, return-on-investment, earnings per share, or whatever. Such tangible goals provide a common target for employees, and, if well chosen, can be great morale-builders.”


“Businessmen working in charities could help set up quantitative goals and keep them sophisticated and updated. If, for example, you are working with a hospital, it might be worthwhile to set a goal of holding the average daily cost to patients to a 2 percent annual rise over three years. Adjustments for inflation or other extraordinary effects would be made regularly. This goal might encourage greater efficiency among workers, especially if incentive payments were reasonable and could be instituted.”


“I am firmly convinced that the private business community can help in meeting the social needs of our country more effectively than can the government, either local, state, or national.


“But there are many candidates running this year who do not believe this. They are against what you and I believe in and stand for. They would have the federal government take on more and more and more. They must not be elected to office if we are to reverse this trend toward socialism. That is your short term job, and it is very important this year.


“Over the longer term we must all continue to see that free enterprise American business meets the needs of our society. Not just the goods and services for our customers, and the wages and benefits for our employees, and the profits for our stockholders and on which our businesses depend for stability and growth—but we must also as businessmen and businesswomen contribute to the quality of life in the community around us and help the people of this country fulfill their spiritual needs as well as their material needs. That is our longer term job. It is very important, and it will never be finished.


“Thank you.”


5/23/72, Prior draft of Packard’s speech with extensive handwritten sections by Packard


3/28/72, Letter to Packard from Gerald P. Flannerey, President, San Francisco Jr. Chamber of Commerce inviting Packard to be the keynote speaker at their Annual Awards Luncheon in San Francisco.

Feb. 1972, Copy of printed newsletter called the “San Franciscan” published by the Jr. CC

Undated, Copy of a printed brochure called “The War of Apathy,” also from the Jr. CC

5/24/72, Clipping from the San Francisco Chronicle covering Packard’s speech

October, 1972, Copy of a newspaper called “Th Universal Voice.” The paper says it is published by “the International Re-Education Foundation, a non-profit corporation whose purpose is to promote a better man and a better society by the development of human character.”



Box 3, Folder 33 – General Speeches


August 4, 1972, Pepperdine University Commencement Address, Santa Monica, CA


8/4/72, Typewritten copy of Packard’s speech


Speaking to the graduating class at Pepperdine, Packard thinks back to his own years at Stanford. He says a course in American History had a “profound” influence on his thinking. He says he “dreamed about the days when men could leave the troubled civilization of Europe and find unbounded hope and opportunity in America;” – followed, as eastern cities developed, by the call – “go west, young man, go west.”


However, he says there was no “further west to go in 1934,” when he graduated from Stanford.


He admits, however, that as he looks back on what has happened since 1934 he realizes that this has been “as exciting and as adventurous a period for America as any period during the great romantic westward movement.” And just as exciting and satisfying for himself  “as anything that might have happened to him if he could have…turned back the clock to the period 1834 to 1872 -–the golden years of the great westward movement.”


Packard pictures the period of the western movement as a time when “there was unlimited land, an abundance of game, and mineral resources to be had for the taking.  Life centered around the family, mobility was severely limited, and communication between geographical areas of the country was slow and lacking in detail. For the most part it was an agrarian, non-scientific culture.


“During the first six decades of this century, science and economic development created a new culture. I remember I heard my first radio broadcast in 1922 when I was ten years old. On the dining room table of our home in Pueblo, Colorado, I hooked up a primitive vacuum tube my father had bought for me and the family took turns listening to WHO in Des Moines, Iowa.” He draws the contrast, when, fifty year later the whole world visited China along with President Nixon via man-made satellite in space.”


Packard takes a try at answering a key question that faces the young people graduating today – “What are our opportunities as we step out into the real world?” While “No one can predict what your opportunities will be,” he says…”there is one clue…and that comes from the basic nature of growth. Physical growth tends to be exponential rather than linear.”


But this growth brings its problems as well, Packard acknowledges. “If the usage of many [natural resources] now considered critical to our economy continues to grow at an exponential rate, the world’s supply will be exhausted within your lifetime. Silver, copper, chromium and a number of other metals fall into this category – and even oil could be exhausted in only a few generations.


“Within the past two centuries we have seen the beginning of the end of unlimited resources – first of land and those other things available for the taking, and now even some of the things that have been the products of science. The scarey [sic] thing is that this great change has come about within the memory of people at least some of us have known – our parents and our granPackardarents.


“I suppose the fact that many of you young people are troubled about what your parents and your granPackardarents have done is because we are reaching the point where the traditional attitude – the acceptance of and commitment to exponential growth -–is rapidly bringing our world to an unacceptable situation.


“The evidence of the development of this unacceptable situation, resulting from uncontrolled growth, is mounting – pollution the most obvious. I think a general awareness is evolving, that what we have been doing in the past cannot continue forever in the future – in many respects cannot even continue for very long.


“This is the great challenge for you young people who are graduating in 1972. You may long for things the way they were – or may accept things the way the are, but you are the ones who will have to make things the way they are going to be. You are faced with the awesome task of solving the ecological problems posed by our population and by the demands of our technological society. And as you approach these problems, keep in mind that the goal is to survive not for just another generation or two, but for as long as the sun shall shine – for at least another billion years.


“I will not even attempt to predict what the future holds for you, except to assure each of you that in at least three ways it will be similar to my future in 1934. There will be challenge, there will be change, and there will be opportunity.


“Good luck, and God bless you.”



8/4/72, Six notebook pages handwritten by Packard as a draft of comments to include in his speech.

7/19/72 Clipping form New York Times,  with article about rising income during the 1960s. No doubt included as reference material for Packard

5/10/72, Letter to Packard from William S. Banowsky, President of Pepperdine University saying the University would like to award Packard the Degree of Doctor of Laws, and would also like Packard to deliver the commencement address.

6/5/72, Letter to Packard from William Banowsky, giving details for the commencement. Also, apparently in response to a question raised by Packard, assures him that no protest activities are expected.

8/8/72, Letter to Packard from Herbert W. Kalmbach congratulating Packard on his address.

10/31/72,Ttypewritten note to Packard from Norvel Young sending six photos taken at the commencement.



Box 3, Folder 34 – General speeches


September 14, 1972, Annual Meeting, The Salvation Army, San Francisco, CA


9/14/72, Typewritten copy of Packard’s speech


Packard says he is pleased and honored to be here today, because  – “In many ways the ideals and the accomplishments of the Salvation Army represent to me the America I was brought up in, and the America I believe in.”


Packard says he appreciates “that after your long and first-hand involvement with the poverty, the ill health, and the degradation which many people of America have suffered for many years, you have not surrendered to the notion that simply more money from the government will cure the social ills of our country.


“I am impressed that you stress the importance of spiritual guidance – and with this foundation you believe that dedicated people who are willing to work for what they believe in can contribute more to the resolution of the problems of our time than billions of dollars of federal funds administered through the often un-informed and inept – and nearly always political and unresponsive – bureaucracy of the federal government, whether it be Republican or Democratic.”


“The pressures are strong indeed to encourage people to believe that if we simply spend more money on our social problems they will be solved. The pressures to encourage people to believe that the government in Washington can do everything are also strong. This belief is well entrenched among the so-called intelligencia in America, and among the so-called liberals in Washington.”


Packard cites some of the reasons why the federal government cannot do those things a private organization like the Salvation Army can do.


“One reason is that all too often federal anti-poverty programs are based on political expediency. Money goes where an influential Congressman thinks there are votes to be had. Of course, the Congress is not the only culprit – the money may go where a member of the Administration thinks it will be useful, rather than where it will be effective.”


Packard points to the Rural Legal Assistance Program, as an example of a federal program with a negative effect. “This program is based on the notion that certain classes of people are oppressed by the so-called “system” and need legal aid to fight back. This brings about the absurd situation in which the federal government supports attacks on the local government in the name of securing justice. I accept the fact that there may be isolated cases in which this procedure could result in the correction of an injustice – but these few instances do not justify the program as it has been conceived.


“People in the federal government can never know as much about the facts of a local situation as the local people. It is hard for me to see the value of a procedure which isolates the decision makers from the facts. In addition, handling matters in this manner does much to make people distrust their government.”


Packard gives more examples to support his conviction that “where a job can be done by volunteer efforts or by an independent organization – be it a private business firm or a public service organization such as the Salvation Army – it will be done better than if done by an agency of the federal government.”


“Let’s look at the current program for unemployment compensation and aid to dependent families. Both have strong built-in incentives not to work.”


Packard agrees there are cases where people do not have a job – and need and deserve help for their families. “In such cases I would much rather depend on the judgment of people interested in the local problem such as the members of the Salvation army who are on the scene and who can carefully and humanely assess the situation, than on the typical person in the Washington bureaucracy who probably does not know what it is all about, and more often than not is interested in helping his record rather than the people who need help.


“Another problem,” Packard says, “is that public welfare programs involve large amounts of money. Where there is big money there are always con men ready for the grab. You are all aware, I am sure, of situations where there have been unlawful diversions of funds.”


Packard commends the Army for its willingness to “toot your own horn.”


“Your singing at Christmas time, your uniforms, and many of your other activities attract attention to your cause and demonstrate that you are willing to acclaim to the public what you believe in.”


Packard says the Salvation Army’s willingness to go out in the streets is good. “By doing this, your members reap a twofold benefit. They are exposed directly and personally to the people they are trying to help. And secondly, they strengthen their personal commitment to solving the problems they encounter.”


“Your use of a uniform particularly interests me, having served in the Pentagon for three years. It seems to me that the uniform helps give members of an organization a sense of identity with their colleagues. I observed in the military that the best soldiers showed pride in their uniform – and that this pride in the uniform in turn turned into a kind of pride in the service.


Furthermore, the uniform brings your organization to the attention of others. And – in the case of the salvation Army, the armed services, and our police forces – the uniform reminds people of your willingness to forego fancy clothes and high salaries so you might better serve humanity.”


Packard diverges a moment saying, while he is on the subject of uniforms, that he would like to say a few words about the armed services. He says “our soldiers have been the victim of a continuing stream of vicious attacks on our campuses, in the media, and, even more distressingly, from many elected officials.”


“Many of these criticisms originate with disenchantment with the Vietnam war. But the military should not be made a scapegoat for policies handed down by civilian authorities. Scapegoating is particularly unjust to our soldiers since they are bound not to engage in political debate. Therefore, they cannot defend themselves.


“While serving in the Pentagon, I came to know a great many of the men and women in our armed services. I developed a high regard for their professionalism and their dedication. They are not the misfits or power-hungry martinets which their detractors picture them to be. On the contrary, they are dedicated people interested in developing their professional expertise and devoted to serving their country.”


“There is another group of Americans who have recently come under fire and which the Salvation Army, I would hope, can sympathize with.  I refer to those who feel that America has a commitment to the rest of the world, and who are criticized for holding this view. The Salvation long ago made a commitment to world-wide service. Today you serve in 70 countries. You understand the indivisibility of mankind. You understand that our many problems at home are no excuse for turning our backs on the rest of the world.


“Yet just this turning away from the world is what many politicians are today advocating. They advocate drastic cuts in defense spending. They advocate drastic cuts in foreign aid. They advocate, in effect, withdrawal from our commitments around the world.


“I say this is wrong. I say that internationalism is one of America’s greatest opportunities today. And it is through our substantial aid programs – both military and economic – as well as the efforts and contributions of the private business sector, that we will carry out our international obligations.


“I might add that those who want to withdraw from the world are living under an illusion. They believe that, by an act of will, we can discard our international ties and devote our full attention and resources to domestic problems.


“But America is not an island. America cannot be isolated from the rest of the world. Prosperity, democracy, and social justice cannot flourish at home if they do not exist abroad. Is it possible that our free institutions would be unaffected by the Soviet subjugation of western Europe? Is it possible that democracy in the United States would be unthreatened by a victorious Marxist tide sweeping through Latin America? I am sure you all know the answer to this question.”


Packard returns to the subject of private charities,  saying he would like to point out some strengths which both business and the Salvation Army bring to their charitable efforts.


“First, we are both interested in charity, because it is right, not because it will make us rich, or powerful, or more influential. Self-denial is a way of life with you. As individuals you each make an enormous financial sacrifice to spend your life in the Salvation Army. And as an organization you are also prepared to make sacrifices. I am reminded of your decision to lead the way in the formation of the U.S.O. at the outset of World War II. You knew you would be passing up an opportunity to expand your influence, and yet you supported the U.S.O. concept. And, You did it for a simple reason: it was the right thing to do. For your self-sacrifice, millions of American servicemen are thankful.


“And businessmen – while they cannot claim to make the some sacrifice that you in the Army do – they do charitable work without ulterior motives. The businessman who spends his evenings telephoning to raise money for a hospital or coaching a little league team does this because it is right – not because it will get him anything.”


“Second, both business and the Salvation Army understand how vital effective administration is to any successful attack on human suffering. The Salvation Army has patterned itself after that great model of administrative organization, the Army. And, business structures its charitable activities along the same highly efficient lines it has worked our for its day-to-day business operations.


“By contrast, the welfare activities in the public sector – particularly at the federal level – often are poorly organized. They are plagued with overlapping areas of authority, excessive layers of command, and lack of a well-developed sense of obedience.”


Continuing with his description of the similarities of business and the Salvation Army charitable activities, Packard says “both business and the Salvation Army are flexible in their approach to meeting social problems. Adaptability is almost an article of faith with the businessman. He is trained to be sensitive to changing human needs as expressed in the marketplace. Once he turns his attention to social problems, he becomes quickly attuned to changing patterns of social needs.


“Your changing approaches to drug addicts, alcoholics, and unwed mothers are just three examples of how you have grown with the times. But changing with the times does not mean chasing after fads. And we in business and you in the Salvation Army are often able to act more independent than people in the public sector. The politician seeking votes or the bureaucrat seeking funding must be closely attuned to what Ralph Nader’s latest pronouncement was, or what the latest environmental fad is. We can be more detached in our appraisal of what needs to be done and what can be done.


“I am frequently asked by businessmen friends about what sort of social involvement they should pursue – getting minorities integrated into the economy, working for better plant conditions, cleaning up the environment, hiring veterans, or whatever. I almost invariably tell them: be a good neighbor: do what you can do best.


“If you run a large plant in a depressed section of town, perhaps you should set up a manpower retraining program. On the other hand, if your firm is setting up a plant in a prosperous suburban area, extra money might better be spent on raising the architectural and landscape standards of your plant.


“The Salvation Army has been a pacesetter for 100 years. Long before the politicians discovered and publicized these trouble areas in our society, you knew that life was wretched for many, and that what was needed was both spiritual and material help. You knew that blacks and other minority groups needed guidance and encouragement. You knew that unwed mothers needed help, and not social rejection. You knew that all people in trouble – the rejected, the dejected, and the downtrodden of all kinds – were, after all, human beings who needed above all else human compassion.


“You men and women of the Salvation Army have set a noble standard for all Americans. If we can follow in your footsteps, America and the world will be a better home for all of us.


“Thank you.”


9/14/72, Copy of printed invitation to the Salvation Army “Annual Civic Luncheon Meeting”

9/14/72, Printed time schedule of events at the luncheon

9/14/72, Typewritten note listing seating arrangements at the head table

9/14/72, Copy of printed booklet titled “What is The Salvation Army?”

9/14/72, Copy of booklet describing Army activities and organization in the Bay Area

9/14/72, News clipping from the Palo Alto Times covering Packard’s speech

5/31/72, Letter from Lt. Col. Robert J. Angel to Packard inviting him to be the guest speaker at their annual luncheon

7/28/72, Letter to Packard from Lt. Col. Robert J. Angel  giving background on the Army

8/23/72, Letter to Packard from Lt. Col. Angel discussing more details for the luncheon

9/11/72, Letter to Packard from Lt. Col. Angel sending a draft of the program for the luncheon, and a listing of seating at the head table

9/14/72, Letter to Packard from Marjorie D. Sheffield, Executive Director, USO, complimenting Packard on his speech

9/18/72, Letter to Packard from Bernice M. Hemphill, Executive Director, Irwin Memorial Blood Bank, complimenting him on his speech

9/18/72, Letter to Packard from Lt. Col. Angel thanking Packard for participating in their luncheon

9/18/72, Letter to Packard from Lt. Col. Angel enclosing a clipping from the SF Examiner covering the Army luncheon. It contains a quote from the Army’s PR Director to the effect that Packard’s speech was too political. Co. Angel says this was not what she said and they agree with Packard’s remarks.

9/21/72, Copy of a letter from Packard to Co. Angel saying he should not be concerned with the Examiner’s article.

10/3/72, Letter to Packard from Alden P. Stanton thanking Packard for speaking at the Salvation Army luncheon



Box 3, Folder 35 – General Speeches


December 8-9, 1972, AIAA/NABE Seminar, Los Angeles


12/8/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech, with extensive handwritten inserts by Packard


The theme of this two day conference is “Reorienting the Aerospace Industry to Changing National Priorities.” Packard titled his speech “Should the Aerospace Industry Reorient to Changing Priorities,”  and he quickly makes it clear that he has “some reservations about the theme of this conference, and so in a sense I am appearing as the Devil’s Advocate.”


“Packard’s handwritten insert at this point reads: “My doubts are not whether some priorities might be changed but more as to how to do it. Senator Tunney  this morning [spoke?] to favor Federal subsidies – what he called a NASA approach to some of our domestic problems – crime, health, transportation. I don’t subscribe to the Federal subsidy approach. I simply think you will have a better industry in the long run if as you go into new markets you have to compete with those industries that are already there.


Packard says he agrees that the aerospace industry must change with the times. But what he takes exception to, and what he sees as the “proposal before this conference is that the Aerospace industry should do more than change with the times. What is proposed is that the aerospace industry should make a concentrated effort to move into new fields and new markets different from those in which the industry has been involved in the past.”


Packard agrees that the aerospace industry has a severe problem because of cutbacks in defense spending, plus leveling off of the demand for commercial aircraft, but he is “not at all sure that this problem can be solved, or even alleviated for the industry by trying to move into new product and new market areas.


“The Aerospace industry has had some great triumphs. It has also had some disastrous failures. This leads into the second argument which again I believe is wrong.


“The second argument is that because of its great triumphs in space and aerospace the industry has unique qualifications to do other difficult tasks. As your chairman put the issue in his introduction, the Aerospace industry, with its advanced technology base and sophisticated managerial and systems analysis technique, is well qualified to meet the challenges of the future.


“I have trouble with both of these propositions.


Packard says there “will not be any major increases in federal funding of defense and aerospace programs in the foreseeable future.”


“The challenge for the Aerospace industry in respect to national security, then, is to produce for America more defense capability at lower cost.”


The overall problem of national security can probably be solved with lower levels of military manpower. But if America is to remain strong we cannot have both lower levels of manpower and inferior weapons.


“Thus, I come to the conclusion that the most important responsibility and opportunity for the Aerospace industry, in respect to National Security, is to do the job that it is capable of doing and doing it right. Your responsibility in your industry is to develop and build the weapons that only you know how to build, and to do so with greater efficiency and greater economy than you have done in the recent past.”


“Defense budgets will be lower in the future in terms of real dollars. The need for military capability will not go away. You people in the Aerospace industry have one of the greatest challenges of the century against which to apply your so-called ‘great sophisticated management and systems analysis capabilities.’ Frankly, I think you may have to get rid of some of these ‘sophisticated management and systems analysis capabilities’ and fall back on some good old-fashioned common sense management techniques if indeed you are to do the job for the country that must be done.


“The only way an industry can produce better weapons at lower cost is with fewer people. That, in my view is what you in this industry will have to face up to. I am convinced, after spending three years in the Pentagon, that the industry is grossly over staffed and very inefficient by any sound management standards.”


Packard places part of the blame on “some of the so called ‘experts’ in the Pentagon, but says the Aerospace industry can do better – “in fact, you must do better in responding to what will continue to be your main priority.”


Another handwritten insert at this point reads: “Secretary Hansen talked about some of the things we tried to do while I was at the Pentagon to improve the efficiency – I sincerely believe the industry can do a better job, but again let me emphasize –this will require even fewer people and will not help the matter you are worrying about here.


As to people, I do believe a more effective effort could be mounted to retrain, reorient and relocate people – and in fact, it may be a better approach to encourage other industries to take advantage of technology by absorbing some of the technical talent from Aerospace.”


Packard accepts as accurate the claim that the Aerospace industry has a great store of advanced technology. “Our magnificent air transportation system is based solidly on fine contributions from the Aerospace industry. In turn, this fine accomplishment can be largely attributed to research paid for over the hears from the defense budget. Weather satellites and satellite communication have come from federally financed space and defense research, and satellite communication in particular is a new priority of great importance for the future.“


“Commercial jet aircraft began as simple modifications of military jet aircraft, and it is interesting to speculate where we might be with commercial aviation had there been no requirement for military jet aircraft of comparable size and performance. Or as a corollary, how bright the prospects for an American SST might be if the SST could evolve as a simple modification of the B1 bomber.”


These and other contributions from the Aerospace industry have been, Packard says, “rather natural expansion of advanced technology into new markets which were logical and natural for the Aerospace industry. In most other cases where aerospace technology has contributed to old or established markets, other industries with experience in those markets have simply picked up the advanced technology of the Aerospace industry and applied it themselves.


“With the notable exception of the commercial airline industry, which grew up hand in hand with the Aerospace industry, the record of applying the so-called ‘sophisticated management and systems analysis technique’ by the aerospace industry to new fields is not very good.”


Looking for some examples, Packard points to the shipbuilding industry, which he says was far behind in technology and adhered to what many considered to be antiquated management principles….This great opportunity was siezed [sic] upon by several of the largest, and until then the most successful of the Aerospace firms. What happened? So far, all of the sophisticated management and system analysis techniques were ineffective in an area where the firms had no previous experience. They simply did not know the business.”


Another handwritten insert: “And this brings out a point which Dr. Moor alluded to this morning. The Aerospace industry does not have the marketing capability needed for other market areas. I believe the point is even broader than that – every industry has built up over the years a great deal of special know how unique to that industry. Aerospace may bring some new and useful know how to a new industry. There will be much old and necessary know how it does not have. And this fact must be recognized as new areas are considered.,


“In the case of shipbuilding, the one firm which did know something about the business may work its problems out. General Dynamics, which had considerable shipbuilding experience in its Electric Boat Division, may eventually salvage something out of its expansion into a non-aerospace field.”


“Examples of the Aerospace industry with its great management talent expanding by the conglomerate route do not give much credence to the theme that the Aerospace industry has much to offer in new and different fields either. I can think of some aerospace companies which are now better off after having been taken over by non-aerospace companies. I am hard put to think of many non-aerospace companies that are better off after having been taken over by aerospace companies.
I believe it is time for you people to call a spade a spade and admit that the first priority of the Aerospace industry is to get its house in order and not go charging into new fields. The industry does not yet know how to build complex reliable equipment at a reasonable cost. The industry can build complex equipment which is reliable when there are no constraints on cost. The Apollo program is a magnificent example of what can be done, and there are some equally impressive defense programs.


“Most of the defense development and procurement programs, however, have not produced the kind of equipment the industry can be very proud of. Most of our current military aircraft can fly only a few hours without a system failure. The development process in the industry is so slow and inefficient that most new systems are out of date by the time they go into the inventory.


Another handwritten insert reads: “Now, as I have already suggested, these problems of the Aerospace industry can not be blamed on the industry alone. The industry had to do what its major customer asked for and its major customer was not always very smart in its demands. Underbidding has been encouraged, which was a major factor in cost [over runs?]  – overly complex equipment – production without adequate test of the design. The industry has some bad habits which will have to be unlearned before it will be able to compete efficiently in new areas.


“We have a good example of what has happened when aerospace techniques are applied to ground transportation in the Bay Area Rapid Transportation (BART) system. This system was designed around computers and other aerospace type system technology. After a few weeks of operation one of the trains ran off the end of the track. The program is far behind schedule and the cost overruns are substantial, and there are other serious problems. In short, BART has most of the characteristics of many recent products of the Aerospace industry – such as the C-5A.


“You in the Aerospace industry have only one priority, that is to learn how to do the job you are supposed to be doing and do it right. Learn how to build reliable equipment at a reasonable cost. Stop looking to the government to bail you out when you fail to do your job.


“I am convinced the serious problems which the Aerospace industry has are largely related to the fact that this industry has been and still is too dependant on the government. And I judge what is being suggested here today is that the government should support the industry involvement into new fields. I have no trouble with the concept of expansion into new fields if the industry is willing to submit to the rigid disciplines of the marketplace in doing so.
The worst possible thing for the Aerospace industry would be for the federal government to subsidize its ‘reconversion’ into domestic markets. This would assure the continuation of the waste and inefficiency which is the real problem of the industry.


“On the other hand if you can go it on your own and learn to compete in the real world, more power to you. Some of you can, and some of you can’t.


“And so I will conclude by answering the question I have posed in the title of my presentation. Should the Aerospace industry reorient to new priorities.? The answer is yes to the extent it can demonstrate by its performance that it can do so. The answer is no if the industry must seek subsidies from the government to survive. Government subsidies to help the industry reconvert to new priorities will not help its survival  – it will only postpone its failure. This is my solid belief, and I urge you to give consideration to these thought as you set your course for the future.”


12/8/72, Typewritten copy of the program for the AIAA/NABE Seminar

12/8/72, Printed copy of the program

12/8/72, Copy of one page of the program with handwritten notation on back by Packard – no doubt with thoughts occurring to him as he heard others speak

12/8/72, Copy of speech given at the Seminar by Grant L. Hansen Ass’t. Secretary of the Air Force Research and Development


9/18/72, Letter to Packard from W. H. Pickering, Director JPL, giving details on the Seminar

10/12/72, Letter to Packard from Don Wendling giving more details of the Seminar

11/13/72, Letter to Packard from G. Russell Morrissey, giving the time for Packard’s speech and asking for the title of Packard’s speech

12/15/72, Letter to Packard from Michael Witunski asking for a copy of Packard’s speech

12/18/72, Letter to Packard from H. K. Gagos providing copies of newspaper clippings

1/16/73, Handwritten letter to Packard from Paul K. Adams taking exception to Packard’s speech

2/1/73, Letter to Packard from George Johnson complimenting him on his speech on the Aerospace industry

2/1/73, Letter to Packard from James McGuire asking for a copy of Packard‘s speech

2/1/73, Letter to Packard from A. L. Barnes saying he is an employee of McDonnell-Douglas and asking for a copy of Packard’s speech. He also encloses a clipping from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch covering the speech

2/9/72, Copy of a letter from Packard to Mr. A. L. Barnes replying to his letter of 2/1/72 and saying “I note you are an employee of McDonnell-Douglas, and I want you to know that I believe your firm has done an outstanding job over the years and is not subject to many of the criticisms I have made about the industry in general.”

2/27/73, Letter to Packard from John F. Bishop complimenting Packard on the speech


News Clippings

12/11/72, Copy of clipping from Los Angeles Times with headline “Packard Hits Inefficiency of Aerospace Industry

12/12/72, Copy of clipping from Palo Alto Times with headline “Heads may roll in aerospace

Undated, unnamed clipping headed “Packard: Aerospace overstaffed, inefficient”


Box 2, Folder 25 – Department of Defense


January 12, 1972, Army Project Managers Conference


1/12/72, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech.


Speaking to a group of Army project managers Packard tells them that the Services must do a better job, and that the Office of the Secretary of Defense can’t do it for them. He adds “I assume the purpose of this conference is to discuss what you can do to improve the way this job is done in the Army.”


Packard says that “…we do not believe we have necessarily discovered or laid out for your consideration the best of all possible policies in all details. I do believe that if the policies we have outlined are followed, a better job can be done in future than has been done in past.


“The first step in improving management is always to put a better man in charge and give him the authority to discharge the responsibility you have given him.”


“A manager must know and understand what his responsibility is – what is expected of him – and this often requires a wide range of discussion – communication we often call it.”


As an example, Packard says “The manager is naturally expected to manage the development of the new weapons system for which he is responsible so it will have the highest possible performance, be available at the lowest possible cost, and all within the shortest possible time. The first fact of life we must learn to accept is that these parameters cannot be rigidly specified at the beginning of a project.


“There must be trade-offs made in the parameters involved, and cost must be one of those parameters in the equation.

“The problem is that all too many times cost is the only variable, the performance and the schedule are fixed and only the cost is allowed to change.


“When a project is structured this way, the cost will, in fact, almost always change and the direction will always be up.


“The project manager must be allowed to let other variables than the cost change. I hope, in fact, you can learn to manage programs to keep cost within a ceiling. To do so trade-offs of other parameters must be accepted.”


“Packard says that he has reviewed many projects over the past three years, and he has concluded that “…often disaster has been built into the program at the beginning because the first decisions were not made right….”[This means] several things. First, the new weapon that is proposed must fit into long-range planning and has at least a reasonable prospect of being developed and procured with resources which are likely to be available.”


“This aspect of – make the first decision right – hardly comes within the project manager’s responsibility – but there are some other aspects of – make the first decision right – that do.


“Is the project as proposed really feasible – are we asking for too much performance – are we out too far in new technology – have the uncertainties been eliminated or at least defined and minimized before a major commitment to the project is undertaken.


“Do we have the right kind of a contract.


“Have we made honest cost estimates or do we have a buy-in.


“These are all aspects of what I mean by saying – make the first decision right. You project managers have a great stake in this issue because – no matter how good a manager you may be you will look bad if the project is not started on a sound basis.


Packard agrees initial questions are difficult and often cannot be resolved by paper studies alone. “To the extent the design can be reduced to operating hardware it will be much more likely that two of the key questions can be answered with much more certainty.


“Is this really what we want for our forces – will it add significant capability and thus be worth the investment.

“Can a practical design be achieved which can be produced at a reasonable cost.


“I conclude that many programs will be improved by more use of development hardware, tested before full-scale development and production is committed.


“The fly before you buy concept includes more use of development prototypes, there is another equally important aspect. The full-scale development should be completed before major investment in production is made. I am sure all of you who have been through a program realize that some investment in production may be appropriate before the development models are tested and approved. Urgency to have the new operational capability in the forces is often given as a reason to accept concurrency between development and production. This may be a valid reason in time of crisis or in wartime, …and I believe experience will support the fact that it is always more costly. Many contractors will try to make a case otherwise, but I do not believe it can be done if we accept the need to make some production investment – tooling – production processes – perhaps the better way to put it – keep the production build-up to an absolute minimum until all the bugs are shaken out of the design.”


Packard mentions some other things that must be given attention in striving toward better management.


“Training and development for managers.


“Management is a profession – not a two-year tour of duty.


“Organizational structure has a considerable impact on creating an environment for better management.


“Not everyone has to be in on everything is something that must be emphasized at all levels – especially the OSD offices.


“Let me conclude by saying again – if there is to be a record of better management on army projects in the future, you are the people who will have to do the job. If you are to do the job, you will have to be supported fully by your supervisors and by the OSD offices. You will have to take some heat from congress when you know you are right. For example, there are some programs where a cost type contract is the only way the development can be done right. You will have to find some way not to accept the low bid when it is obviously a buy-in. There will be some tough issues to face – but there is no such thing as good management unless it is tough-minded management. I am confident you men here today are up to the challenge.”

1973 – Packard Speeches

Box 3, Folder 36 – General Speeches


January 8-10, 1973, AIAA Ninth Annual Meeting and Technical Display, Washington D. C.


Packard was asked to Chair the technical session on “Prototype Programs.” The folder contains the Meeting Program along with copies of letters between Packard and AIAA people arranging details for the meeting.



Box 3, Folder 37 – General Speeches


February 26, 1973, The Corporation and Society: Allies or Antagonists?, Business & Society Seminar, California State University, San Francisco, CA


2/26/73, Copy of typewritten text of Packard’s speech


Packard recalls that the first meeting he ever attended where the subject of corporate responsibility to society was discussed was back in the mid 1940s. The prevailing opinion was that business management had no particular responsibility to society beyond “simply doing a good job.”


Packard says he did not concur with that idea then, and “as you know, the [idea] that management does have…a responsibility beyond simply doing a good job in their business has become accepted on a rather broad base.” Packard mentions Adam Smith and his laissez -faire doctrine which said, in effect, that  if business men are left alone to do what is in their self interest, the result will be …what is best for society. And, in the same vein, Packard recalls Charles Wilson’s statement that what was good for General Motors was good for the United States.


When looking at the issue of the responsibility of business management to take an active part in social problems Packard recommends taking a  broad view. “We have to recognize that when there are concerns generated in the society about any matter, whether it is a business matter or some other concern that affects a significant number of people in the society, there are, generally speaking, three ways by which something is done to address the concern.”


The best way, Packard feels, is a voluntary effort by citizens to try to understand what the problem is and try to do something about it. “That is what business management can do, and that in my view is probably the best basis for rationalizing, justifying, and involving business management. If the people who have the responsibility and ability to do something about the matter of concern do not do so voluntarily, then it is almost certain one of two things is going to happen. There will be some kind of countervailing force built up -– a group of citizens, a group of protesters. That, I believe, is really the kind of mechanism that brought about the labor union situation. Failure of management to do what was appropriate, what was right in terms of employees, generated enough concern that caused and brought about the labor movement.”


“The third way things get changed, if people think they need to be changed, is through government regulation, and we have all had plenty of experience with that. In fact, if you look back into the history of business and industry there has been a very long history of government regulation that has restricted the freedom of management and at the same time I think has in general brought about some things that need to be brought about.”


“So, when I think about this general subject I always get back to a fundamental proposition. When there are concerns expressed about the business community and its relationship to society at large, including any group of people in the society – employees, customers, and people in the community where your plants are located – then to the extent that management can be responsive and can perceive and understand what the problems and concerns are and undertake to do something abut it, the result will be a much better solution that one imposed by a protest group of countervailing force of any kind. It will also be much better than the solution imposed by governmental regulation. Actually things are not quite that ideal, and even though business does undertake to address some of these things and do what is perceived to be right, it is very likely that there will be protest groups and governmental regulations anyway.”


“It seems to me there are lots of reasons why it is very desirable for business management to accept a responsibility to undertake to do those things which are obvious. Business should look ahead and try to understand those things that are likely to build up in the future. When there is some indication of concern in relation to society with which we are involved, it is much better to have done something about it. I suppose you can make the argument that management has a moral responsibility in this area, but I don’t think you need to rely on that sort of rationalization. I think it is just simply good business. I think you are going to end up with a better organization, and you are going to do a better management job if indeed you do some of these things. You can justify almost anything that is likely to be required in this area as responding to those things which are desirable to do in terms of simply better management.”


Packard says he would like to move on and talk about some specific things “One of the most important segments of society that we have to deal with is our employees. They are not only our employees but they are representative of the society in which we live. Therefore our dealings with our employees have a significant impact on the relationship of our organization with society. Here, there are a number of things that are important, but one is that we all complain about the bad image that business has these days. I simply tell you that the best and most effective public you have is your own employees. If they are home every day bitching about the way you are running your shop it certainly isn’t going to help the image of your company. On the other hand if they think, as they should, that it is the best company in the world this can go a long way towards that public image.”


“The attitude towards your employees is more important than anything you do, and the employees are able to perceive this. If they know that you are interested in their welfare, if they know that when there are some problems that they can come in and get a fair hearing, if they know they can count on you, this will go much further than any specific thing you do, any specific monetary reward or benefit of substance.”


Packard tells of an example where HP management and employees worked to solve a problem – in this case heavy traffic making commuting difficult to do in a timely way. The idea came up about trying a flexible work schedule whereby people could come to work any time between 6:30 and 8:00 in the morning and then put eight hours of work, excluding a half hour for lunch.
This has really been an amazing thing. As a result we now have substantially that kind of program in all of our plants in that area.”


“I think that to the extent we can look with our employees at some of their problems and adjust to them, that is one of those things that can have a real and positive benefit. Of course it is easier to do these things if you do not have a union, and fortunately we do not have a union in any of our plants except one in Singapore which we have to have by law. I have tried to follow the basic policy that I have really more reason to be interested in my employees than a union leader does. As soon as the employees think that one of these union people is going to be more interested and more responsive to their needs than I am, then I think they should have a union.”


Packard takes up the problem of discrimination. “…I guess everybody has spent a great deal of time in the last few years trying to figure out how to provide better opportunities for minority people and to address some of the other discrimination problems. But these things seem to be coming a little bit faster than they can be dealt with. I think one of the very serious problems we have is in regard to women. It won’t be long before a meeting like this well be picketed because there are no ladies sitting around the table with you. It is going to be very difficult to do the things that some of these people are interested in doing in respect to women in any reasonable time. I will again suggest to you that if you try to do something about it and actually recognize that this is a matter of real concern, then you will have a much better chance of dealing with this problem without having some completely impossible regulations imposed.


I have already indicated that if there is increased legislation, I think you will be able to live with that legislation whatever it is, more effectively if you get with it and think about it and try to get something done before you are forced to do so. The problem of minorities is a very difficult one; it is really a matter of educational levels, and I think we all are going to have to continue working on this problem. I must say that I am very encouraged by the progress that has been made. We started about six years ago working with the new urban coalition and with some other activities outside of the company and in the community, and we were able to undertake a great may things that have had positive results.”


“There are pressures for quotas; people would like to measure progress we have made in this area by numbers, which is not really the way to judge it, but there is going to be that pressure. We can respond to this problem in a positive way and it will be constructive.


“Our next equally important group of people in society that we must deal with are our customers, and I think in general the business attitude toward customers has come a very long way in this century. If you look back at the basic business attitude, caveat emptor, or buyer beware, you look at all the snake oil practices that were going on in the early days. There has been lots of regulation, but there also has been a great deal of responsible action by management people. And I think we are going to have to continue. I don’t know the extent to which these consumer movements will convert into legislation, but some of them will. In a sense the environmental problem is one, but there is also going to be pressure on uniform packaging, and not putting a small product in a big package and things like that.”


It seems to me the area of employees, the area of customers, the area of those communities around our plants where we operate are reasonable straight-forward problems. That is, we can deal with them and we can understand them if we try, and the impact that we have is a direct one on that particular group of people. Where you have a more difficult time is to understand in advance those areas where the collective action of business generates a problem which one business enterprise wouldn’t generate alone. In a sense air pollution is that type of problem. We have always had an air pollution problem if there has been one factory that generated a tremendous amount of smoke in a particular area. Apart from that, however, the fact that you now have a combination of a number of factories, the contribution of automobile exhaust, and other things have generated a problem that is very difficult for one business to deal with.”


“One of the reasons why private initiative has not been very effective in this area is because of our anti-trust and restraint of trade laws. It would be a lot easier for everybody in industry to sit down and address some of these problems themselves and decide what might be done. In doing so they might decide that they would have to increase their prices a little bit to pay for this, and that wouldn’t go over very well with the Justice department. We have a real problem in terms of how to get responsive private initiative in some of these areas.


I think myself it would be very helpful if it were possible to get some changes in these laws, and not only in terms of the environmental impact. There are a great many other ways in which business could contribute more effectively towards some of these larger social problems if we could get more flexibility under the law. Other countries do have a better situation in this regard. In Japan they have the situation where the government and business are almost in partnership, and they can and do decide all kinds of things. What they decide doesn’t always turn out to be the best, but at least they have a mechanism whereby this can be done and this procedure is followed.


“A question underlying the whole case for private business is really going back to Adam Smith’s laissez-faire philosophy. Despite the many, many problems we have had, despite the fact that there have been some very serious social problems, and some things that haven’t turned out well, the free enterprise economy has been demonstrated to be by far the most efficient and effective way to combine groups of people into a business enterprise, regardless of the kind of enterprise it is. That to me is the stake we have in this business, because we can all be very proud of the accomplishments that each of our business enterprises has made.


“We want to do what we can to preserve the environment that will enable us to be able to make individual decisions, to be able to continue to run our own businesses. Sometimes I am sure you all have gone to the office and you have so damn many problems you wonder if you are free to do anything without getting permission from somebody on the outside anymore. Actually we have a great deal of freedom, and that freedom is going to be preserved. However, it is going to be available to us to exercise and enjoy only so long as we are responsible in that exercise. I suppose this seems to get back to the moral issue, but I don’t really think so. I believe we can justify our decisions on the simple proposition that we are each going to be able to run our business better. In fact each business can make a better contribution to society at large to the extent we can maintain the control of those businesses and manage them ourselves and do those things that are be necessary.


“I don’t know whether the pressures that have built up in these last five years – or approximately that period – are going to increase or not. I do think there is some evidence that the pressures are lessening a little bit in some ways, but there are also some evidences that some pressures are increasing. These things to go through cycles and we are probably moving into an area where there is a little more concern than there has been on the average.


“However, let me go back to what I said in the beginning – that this is not a new subject. It is a subject that scholars have been thinking about for centuries. It is a problem that people have been dealing with and living with for centuries. If you look at the overall progress we have made it has been a very heartening thing and a very impressive performance.”


2/25-27/73, Printed program listing speakers at the seminar

9/21/72, Letter to Packard from S. I. Hayakawa, Cal State University of San Francisco President,  inviting him to participate in the seminar the university is having on Business & Society.

10/4/73, Copy of a letter to Dr. S. I. Hayakawa from Packard accepting the invitation

2/5/73, Letter to Packard from Homer Dalbey, seminar director, giving details of the schedule

3/7/73, Letter to Packard from Homer Dalbey thanking him for participating in the seminar.



Box 3, Folder 38 – General Speeches


March 26-28, 1973, Perceptions of the Military Balance, Europe-America Conference, Amsterdam


3/26/73, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech with two pages of handwritten thoughts at the end of the typewritten pages


This Conference, attended by large contingencies from NATO countries, the U.S. and Canada, was an appraisal of past policies and a look toward opportunities in the future. Packard had been asked to give a paper on the balance of military power in the Atlantic/Mediterranean area.


Packard says the NATO alliance has been a great success – “It has provided the security and kept the peace in western Europe. This was an absolutely essential ingredient to make possible the great economic and social progress of the nations of the Atlantic Community during these past 24 years.”


During the 1950s and the early 60s there were several crises but these were “containable,” Packard says, “because the overall military balance weighed heavily on the side of the Free World. It was a decisive balance because of the vastly superior United States strategic nuclear power. This was backed with worldwide Naval superiority of the NATO  forces, and what has turned out to be an adequate air and ground force posture in Europe.”


However, Packard describes the situation in 1973 as greatly altered. “Today, the Soviet missile force ….exceeds both in numbers and in destructive power the U.S. missile force of …nuclear missiles…..Today neither the Soviet Union nor the United States could risk a nuclear exchange.”


Packard sees this change in military power as posing a different problem, though not necessarily a more difficult one than existed in the past. “It is essential to recognize that great changes have taken place and to try to comprehend their significance in charting a course for the future.”


Packard then summarizes “some of the changes that must be taken into account when considering what must be done to help assure a peaceful environment for the Atlantic Community in the years ahead:”


  1. The superiority the U. S. enjoyed in nuclear forces in the 1950s was lost in the 1960s “and it cannot be regained short of a major technical breakthrough, which no one can foresee.
  2. “This change,” Packard says, “in the nuclear force balance has been accompanied by a substantial increase in the destructive power of both sides….This vast increase in destructive power, combined with the rough equality which has been achieved, severely restricts the utility for nuclear forces for the kinds of confrontations which are probable in the future.
  3. “The United States, supported by its allies, has had virtually absolute control of the oceans and seas around the world. This favorable balance is being threatened by the current buildup of Soviet naval power.” Packard says the balance of naval power need not swing towards the Soviets, but he cautions that the matter “deserves a very high priority.” He sees this need for a favorable naval balance as critical as the strategic nuclear balance.
  4. “The role of tactical nuclear weapons as an element of the military balance has never been resolved in a satisfactory way and must be re-examined in light of the changing situation.
  5. “There will continue to be many factors, including technological improvements in non-nuclear weapons, which influence the military balance.” Packard points out that “evaluating the balance of conventional (non-nuclear) forces by simply adding up the men, the guns, the tanks, the planes, and the ships on each side and expressing them as ratios, …serves no useful purpose. There are many other factors which counter-balance an apparent advantage in numbers. Technology is and will continue to be an important factor – probably one of the most important factors – in the future.”
  6. Packard says that the Sino-Soviet split has already, “and will continue to influence the balance of forces in the European theatre.
  7. “There have been political changes of great significance. Increased trade and a strengthening of communication between the free world and the two major Communist countries are examples. This changing political climate will influence what needs to be done, as well as what can be done, about the future military balance.
  8. “The very significant economic progress of all nations in the Atlantic Community makes it quite feasible to do what is needed to maintain an adequate military balance in the future with an equitable distribution of the load.



The Changed Strategic Nuclear Balance


Packard sees the “decisive and irreversible” change in the balance of nuclear forces between NATO and WARSAW PACT countries as the most important element of  their military balance.


“In the early years of NATO the military balance was strongly in favor of the West because of the vast superiority of United States Strategic Nuclear power. Conventional NATO forces in Europe had no need to be capable of handling alone a massive Soviet thrust into Western Europe. As long as these forces contained a reasonable number of U.S. military personnel, they would serve as a ‘trip wire’ to bring forth American nuclear might should any expansionist venture be attempted….Although the Alliance worked hard to maintain an effective conventional military force through this period, there was always the satisfaction that the nuclear umbrella was there should it be needed.


“There is no doubt the leaders of the Soviet Union felt this U.S. nuclear superiority to be a serious constraint to their freedom of action, and that it was in their national interest to change the situation….This they have now done, and what exists is a nuclear balance. Both the Soviet Union and the United States are now very effectively deterred from using their nuclear capability against each other for any reason short of a dire threat to their very national survival.


“With the strategic nuclear forces now in place on each side, it is almost certain that neither nation could survive as a viable society after an all-out nuclear exchange. This is a very sobering fact which I hope is reasonably understood by our friends in Europe. This nuclear balance means that both sides are now effectively constrained to the use of non-nuclear force in nearly every conceivable situation in which force may be needed.”


“The SALT negotiations can in no way change this fundamental situation….It can be assumed that this stalemate will not be changed. Neither side can agree to a reduction which would bring into question the effectiveness of its nuclear deterrent. Neither side can do anything with present technology which would break this stalemate.”


Packard says in the “…1960s it was recognized that the nuclear balance was changing and that the massive retaliation strategy had become much less credible. Thus there was the ill fated attempt to strengthen the NATO nuclear capability with a multi-lateral force. This was followed with an alternate strategy based around a flexible response, including the use of tactical nuclear weapons.


“These strategies of the 1960s assumed that the so-called nuclear umbrella provided by the United States was either a credible deterrent or a possible course of action of last resource. Most of the thinking about conventional forces involved escalation to nuclear forces in one way or another, and that conflicts which resorted to force would ultimately be resolved at the nuclear level.”


With the current situation of approximate equality of nuclear power forces between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, Packard says, “the strategy from now on must be designed to minimize the possibility of escalation of a conventional force conflict to nuclear forces. This requires that conventional forces be adequate to handle the range of all probable confrontations without the use of nuclear weapons.


“Such a strategy is consistent with the Nixon Doctrine to resolve future conflicts with negotiation rather than confrontation; it is consistent with the aims of arms control, SALT and MBFR; and is the most realistic strategy for the Alliance to follow in the decade of the 1970s and beyond.


“Thus the Atlantic Community is faced with the need to support a more effective conventional military capability in the future than it has had in the past. This need to reorient emphasis to conventional forces is already accepted by military planners. You may recall that Secretary Laird made this point very clear at the NATO meeting in Brussels last fall.”


In this regard Packard says “…naval power can play an increasing role. Specifically, if NATO can maintain worldwide naval superiority, this can add a great deal of realism to the credibility of the NATO conventional force deterrence….”


“The increase in the level of nuclear forces is also relevant to the utility of third party nuclear forces in the European theatre. The present level of nuclear forces of France and Great Britain, even if they could be combined and placed under effective command and control, would have very little deterrent or war fighting capability against the Soviet Union except as an addition to U.S. nuclear forces. “


“It is difficult to postulate any situation in which these third country nuclear forces will have much independent impact on the NATO military balance.”


“These European nuclear forces do add somewhat to the overall NATO nuclear capability even though they have very limited capability standing alone. Until there is a better understanding of and a confidence in what is meant by the United States commitment to provide the nuclear umbrella for the Atlantic Community in the era of the new nuclear balance, it would not be desirable, however, to propose a reduction in these indigenous nuclear forces. In the long run, the resources which are now used to support these indigenous nuclear forces might be more effective if applied to the NATO conventional force capability.”


“I have said that I believe the United States will remain firm in its nuclear commitment to the Atlantic Community. I have also said that with the present nuclear balance the United States would not use its nuclear forces against the Soviet Union short of a dire threat to the survival of the United States. These statements taken together imply my faith that there will be a strong and continuing interdependence between the United States and the European nations of the Atlantic Community. To encourage cooperation toward this goal is what this conference here in Amsterdam is all about. This impact of interdependence on the credibility of the United States nuclear umbrella is one of the reasons why what happens to the Atlantic community in the future is so important to all of the member states, including the United States.”


“The Naval Problem


As with nuclear power, Packard explains that, although NATO forces essentially did rule the seas, the Soviet Union “…has been taking steps to redress this balance….and seems intent on developing a navy capable of challenging hostile forces anywhere on the oceans of the world.”


“This Soviet naval build-up must be viewed with great concern by the Atlantic Alliance. I do not see how the Alliance can survive unless it has effective control of at least the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean. If the alliance can maintain a superior world with naval capability, this can be a strong factor in maintaining an acceptable conventional force balance in the future. NATO naval superiority could be a major factor in limiting or dealing with low level confrontations. This need not be a difficult job, because the only barrier to an adequate naval superiority through the foreseeable future would be the lack of a determination in the Alliance to take the necessary action.”


“Looking to the decade of the 1980s, a superior NATO naval force may be the most important element in the military balance….The most visible factor is the dependence of Europe on middle-Eastern oil today, and the projection that the United States will be in the same situation by 1980, or shortly thereafter, when about half of U.S. oil and gas requirements will have to be imported. No known source other than the middle-East can meet these requirements. This lifeline must be kept secure for the Atlantic community and this consideration alone dictates a strong naval superiority continuing into the future.”


“The Tactical Nuclear Situation”


“In the early years of NATO, when it appeared difficult to counter the considerable Soviet ground force capability with non-nuclear weapons, tactical nuclear weapons were introduced into the theatre. They were thought to be a way of greatly increasing the fire power and, therefore, the effectiveness of NATO forces in Europe. These tactical nuclear weapons included warheads for artillery, for rockets, for bombs, and demolition weapons. A nuclear warhead on a tactical weapon does increase the probability that a given military target can be destroyed. If the enemy cooperates by massing his forces – his tanks, for example – tactical nuclear weapons would be very effective. If tactical nuclear weapons were used to attack bridges or airfields near cities, the bridges and airfields would be destroyed. But so, in all probability, would the cities, unless very small warheads and very accurate delivery systems were used, in which case there would be much less need to go to nuclear fire power.


“The devastating argument against the use of tactical nuclear weapons is that those which both the United States and the Soviet Union now have in place would create vast destruction of civilian population and non-military installations, and the destruction would be very severe in NATO countries, although there would also be much damage in the Warsaw Pact area, particularly those countries close to the front. If both sides agreed to limit themselves to very small nuclear warheads with accurate delivery systems, and agreed there would be no escalation to strategic weapons, tactical nuclear weapons could have some utility. These are, clearly, improbable conditions to postulate.”


“Packard says he has never heard a satisfactory description as to how tactical nuclear weapons might be used. “Probably the very uncertainty about their use makes them somewhat effective as an element of deterrence.” He says “they should be maintained and taken seriously if they are to remain an element of deterrence.” But in his view he says, “They should not… be considered simply as an extension of non-nuclear military capability.


Packard does not agree with the argument some people advance that tactical nuclear weapons can act as a coupling between conventional forces and strategic nuclear weapons. “If ever this were ever the case it is less so now, and a conventional force will be a more realistic deterrent if it can be adequate to control a confrontation without the need for tactical nuclear weapons.”


“The Role of Conventional Forces”


Packard feels that the nuclear stalemate that exists between the Soviet Union and the United States must be maintained. “Fortunately,” he says, “it can be preserved without much, if any, higher cost and probably at a lower cost through tough and realistic negotiations in SALT. This essential stand-off cannot be preserved under any course of unilateral disarmament. Tactical nuclear weapons must, in my view, be considered an important part of the nuclear stalemate. These weapons cannot be neglected, although as I have pointed out, they cannot be thought of as simply a useful extension of conventional theatre forces.


“The result of this situation is that the essential national security priority for the Alliance is to maintain an acceptable balance of conventional military force in Europe, and a superior naval force in the Mediterranean and the Atlantic – and preferable worldwide. This security priority must be addressed in the atmosphere of the growing détente and in the environment of discussions to limit or reduce the level of military forces. One goal is to reduce the burden of military arms on the member states on both sides. This is not the only goal, nor even the most important goal of arms control. If the stability of mutual deterrence is lost in the course of arms control or n the core of détente, both will have failed. I am convinced there can be smaller forces on both sides in a stable balance, and to the extent the smaller forces are strong force, stability will be enhanced. I have said on a number of occasions the United States can safely have smaller forces, but it cannot safely have both smaller forces and inferior weapons. The same applies to NATO, and this brings me to the role of technology.”


The Contribution of Technology


Packard says “It is not necessary to match forces man-for-man, tank-for-tank, plane-for-plane to maintain an effective military balance. Some of the so-called ‘smart’ weapons which have been used recently in Vietnam are from ten to a hundred times more effective than the weapons now in the inventory of either the Pact or NATO. It is probable that modern anti-tank weapons can, to a large degree, neutralize the effectiveness of a massive tank force. Air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles now in the inventory of both sides are primitive in terms of what can be done with the latest technology.”


“This means that the military balance of the future will be determined even less by the number of men, planes or ships on each side. It will be determined by how effectively each side applies the latest technology to the weapons those men, planes or ships carry”


“To maximize the potential of technology will require understanding by both military and political leaders. Weapons involving advanced technology often appear to be very expensive. It may be difficult to convince both the political and the military leaders that a ‘smart’ bomb which might cost $50,000 is more desirable because it is much more effective in destroying a military target than 100 ‘dumb’ bombs costing $500 each. There is uncertainty about the new; there is safety in numbers. But in the end, it is relative effectiveness that must determine the choice. With the ‘smart’ weapons comes a very great bonus – as the probability that these kinds of weapons will destroy a military target goes up, the probability that they will kill civilians and destroy non-military targets goes down.”


Packard also points out that “Research and development on military equipment has great potential for fallout of technology useful in non-military fields….I would go so far as to say that the great progress made by the United States in technology since World War II is to a very large degree the result of the extensive military research and development programs during this period. This is clearly the case in my field of electronics, as well as the more obvious ones of aeronautics and space.”


“The Atlantic Community can more than match the Warsaw Pact in economic strength. The Atlantic Community has a tremendous advantage in technology and in the ability to put technology into practical use. This is where the effort must be directed. This is both the least costly and the most certain way to maintain an adequate military balance in the future.”


Packard warns against letting the Soviet Union take the initiative in the area of technological warfare and says, “We are standing on the threshold of a major breakthrough in military capability through technology. this will be the factor second in importance in determining whether the Free World can maintain a viable military balance into the years ahead. I say second because the most important factor is the desire and determination of the Free World States to do so.


“There are, of course, many problems involved in doing what will be needed to meet the future security requirements of the Atlantic Community and its member nations. There will even be problems in reaching a consensus as to what should be done. There are conflicting interests of the member States – but only to the extent the member States perceive and maintain a common purpose will it be possible to agree on a common security plan. The United States alone has the capability of providing a substantial share of the security of the Alliance without requiring the full effort of the other member States. It is not reasonable to expect the United States to do this in the future. The United States will maintain the nuclear stalemate which, of course it must do in its own self interest. At the same time, no individual European nation can alone match the military might of the Soviet Union. This, then, is the national security imperative that must continue to help cement the Atlantic Community into a viable organization in the decades ahead.”


Packard says statistical data on NATO-Warsaw Pact forces is available for those who wish to study it. “Some of these considerations tend to weigh on the side of the Warsaw Pact , some on the side of NATO. In my view, the most important intangible factor of all is one hard to define and impossible to qualify. That factor is the resolve of one side versus the resolve of the other. It is the territorial imperative that strengthens the defense of the homeland. To the extent the Atlantic Community can continue to progress toward common goals and develop strong common interests, it can and will maintain the resolve to defend itself. That is the essential ingredient of military strength. To the extent the Atlantic Community deteriorates into a loose coalition of nations with cross purposes and without a unifying spirit, to the extent the Community is carried away on the euphoria of détente, it will be very difficult to achieve and maintain an adequate balance of conventional military forces and unrealistic to expect the United States nuclear commitment to remain firm. In these terms, and adequate military balance is essential for the survival of the Atlantic Community and a strong and cohesive Atlantic Community is essential to build and support a military balance adequate to assure the generation of peace which is now finally within reach of this troubled world.”


Packard’s notes, written at the end of the text are as follows:


“Key Elements of Nixon Doctrine


First – The United States will keep all of its treaty commitments.


Second – We shall provide a shield if a nuclear power threatens the freedom of a nation allied with us or of a nation whose survival we consider vital to our security.


Third – In cases of other types of aggression we will help as appropriate but look to the nation directly threatened to provide primary responsibility.”


“National Security Strategy for the 70s


Preserve adequate nuclear capability as cornerstone of Free World’s nuclear deterrent.


Develop Free World forces that are effective and that minimize the likelihood of requiring the employment of strategic nuclear forces.”



3/26-28/73,  Copy of typewritten Programme for the Europe-America Conference

3/26-28/73,  Copy  of typewritten list of delegates to the conference

3/26-28/73, Copy of typewritten list of members of the United States delegation

1/20/73 Letter to Packard from Albert Wohlstetter, University of Chicago, giving a critique of a draft of Packard’s address that Packard had sent to him

1/22/73, Letter to Packard from Theodore C. Achilles, the Atlantic Council, thanking Packard for his donation of $5000 to help with the budget of the conference

1/29/73, Letter to Packard from Eugene Rostow, Yale University, thanking him for his support and saying he believes the conference is urgently needed

2/26/73, Letter to Packard from Caroline de Courcy Ireland of the Europe-America staff asking Packard’s wishes for a car and hotel

2/26/73, Note to Packard from Gene Rostow saying he had read the draft of Packard’s address and was much pleased. He enclosed a copy of a letter he has sent to delegates giving conference plans, also a copy of a letter to Rostow from Henry Kissenger accepting the invitation to speak at the conference


3/3/73, Letter to Packard from John H. Morse, Assistant Secretary of Defense, giving his very comprehensive comments on the draft of Packard’s speech

3/7/73, Typewritten accounting, on Packard’s letterhead, of contributions received for the conference budget

3/9/73, Copy of teletype to Mrs. Caroline Ireland from Margaret Paull giving Packard’s arrival time in Amsterdam and asking that she reserve a chauffeur driven car and hotel

3/10/73, Letter to Packard from Elliiot L. Richardson, Secretary of Defense, commenting on the draft of his address Packard had sent him

3/15/73, Copy of a letter from Packard to Eugene Rostow talking about contributions he had received

3/21/73, Copy of a letter to John Morse from Packard thanking him for his comments of Packard’s speech draft

3/28/73, Copy of a Report by Group B – Changes in the Field of Security, highlighting the major issues identified by this group

3/28/73, Copy of a ‘Draft Resolution’ giving conclusions reached by the delegates to the conference

3/29/73, Letter to Packard from Constant van Eeghen saying he was sorry not to have been able to say goodbye to Packard when he left Amsterdam, and enclosing a copy of his report of a trip to China

6/13/73, Letter to Packard from Constant van Eeghen saying he had recently visited the eastern U.S and he encloses his notes on the trip

6/20/73, Copy of a letter to Mr. E. H. van Eeghen  from Packard saying he enjoyed meeting in Amsterdam and thanking him for the report of his trip to China

8/20/73, Copy of a memo from Eugene Rostow to members of the U.S. delegation giving plans for further follow-up meetings to discuss Conference agreements

11/23/73, Letter to Packard from Constant van Eeghen giving another ‘follow-up’ of his notes on the aforementioned U. S. trip

11/29/73, Letter to Packard from Richard Mayne, Commission of European Communities, asking for a two line description of his contribution to the Conference in Amsterdam which will appear in a forthcoming book, A New Atlantic Challenge

12/11/73, Copy of a letter from Packard to Richard Mayne saying that the description of his contribution in the book could be: “Neither the US nor the USSR can now risk a nuclear war. Future NATO defense strategy must therefore be built around non-nuclear forces. NATO has both the resources and the capability to do so if it has the will.”



Box 3, Folder 39 – General Speeches


May 1, 1973, Business Statesman of the Year Award, The Harvard Business School Club of Northern California


5/1/73, Typewritten text of Packard’s address on receiving this award


Packard says he was thinking of possible subjects for his comments and got to thinking about why he was here tonight. And he felt “…it probably had something to do with the fact that I have spent 30 of the last 33 years of my life in a very exciting period of history and in a very exciting business. That took me back to 1940.


“In 1940 the United States was just one of the modestly important nations of the world, teetering on the brink of isolationism. We had decided not to become involved in Europe and the Japanese thought they could attack Pearl Harbor with impunity. December 7, 1941 changed all that and in the period from then until this year, 1973, our country has become the greatest nation this world has ever seen.”


“We have made unbelievable progress in science and technology since 1940. So much that we forget what things were like just three decades ago. Then the DC-3 was the best flying machine we had. Aircraft like the 747 were only a dream in the realm of science fiction.”


Packard reviews other signs of great progress: landing on the moon, computers, education, plentiful food production at reasonable prices, conquering diseases, transplanting organs. He says the support from the federal government has resulted in fallout benefiting such activities as space travel and jet aircraft travel; but in other areas such as computers, education, medicine, agriculture, as well as others,  it has been private enterprise that was responsible “for the great and exciting progress we have seen.”


“The three years I spent in Washington has greatly reinforced my conviction that the federal government is not equipped to deal effectively with many of our domestic problems. And I believe the record of the past three decades amply supports this view.


“The problems and opportunities of the future will be no less challenging and exciting than those of the past.” And Packard gives several examples of these future challenges: inflation, balance of payments, international monetary values, potential energy shortages, health, education, environment, poverty, and innumerous domestic problems.


“If we are to accellerate [sic] our progress in solving these crucial problems, as indeed we must, perhaps the most important step we can take is to safeguard the freedom and strengthen the integrity and capability of private business and industry.


“These great challenges which lie ahead will not be solved by you taxpayers sending more of your money to Washington, or for that matter to Sacramento, so the people there can take their cut and send some of it back to you with instructions as to how it is to be spent.


“The federal government has a number of important jobs to do that can only be done in Washington. One of these is national security. With our continuing responsibility for world leadership it is essential that we remain the strongest, most powerful nation in the world. As I said here in San Francisco just a few weeks ago, this will be a better world if the United States is the strongest, most powerful and, therefore, the most influential nation in the world than it will be if the Soviet Union is the strongest, most powerful and, therefore, the most influential nation.


“The resources that we can allocate to national security are not unlimited and these funds must be managed wisely.


“The members of the Congress, both the Senate and the House, agree with this principle – until it comes to an expenditure in the individual Senator’s or Representative’s State of district.”


Packard gives the example of Hunters Point shipyard which should, he says, be shut down. “Our sixth fleet is based in European waters and our seventh fleet is based in Asian waters. That is where they need to be to support our foreign policy, at least at this time. It is much less costly to provide repairs and support in areas where our ships operate. Some politicians have proposed to introduce legislation to keep Hunters Point open so long as we are spending money for naval support overseas.


“I would like to remind those politicians that the charter of the Navy is national security – not domestic welfare. I believe business and industry working with the local community can find appropriate jobs elsewhere for these fine people who are working at Hunters Point.


“There are areas where only the federal government can do what needs to be done. There are also areas where the federal government can not do effectively what needs to be done. I hope the private sector and local and regional governments will continue to step up and join forces to accept responsibility for those things which in fact they can do best.


“Both the private sector and local governments are represented in the Harvard Business School Club of Northern California. You, who are members of this fine club, have a great opportunity to show the way here in the Bay Area. I hope you will do so.”


5/11/73, Copy of the printed program for the Award dinner

5/11/73, Copy of the printed invitation to the dinner

4/25/73, Clipping from the San Francisco Chronicle saying Packard will receive the Award

5/5/73, Letter to Packard from Jeanne C. Robinson, Club President, thanking Packard for accepting the Award and speaking to them

5/8/73, Copy of a letter from Packard to Mrs. Robinson saying the affair was a pleasure for both he and Mrs. Packard



Box 3, Folder 40 – General speeches


May 30, 1973, Testimony on Behalf of WEMA  before the Committee on Ways and Means, on H.R. 6767, The Trade Reform Act of 1973, Washington D. C.


5/30/73, Copy of the text of Packard’s presentation to the Committee


Packard introduces himself and explains he is here on behalf of the members of WEMA. He describes the technical products made and the markets served by WEMA companies including the high portion of international sales by most of them. He makes the point that at HP, as an example, “one of out every three U.S. manufacturing jobs exists to support our exports.”


As further background he tells the Committee that for “several years, the sale of high technology products abroad, such as those manufactured by WEMA  member companies, has been one of the prime areas in which the U.S. has continued to hold its own in the world marketplace.” And he quotes some figures from the Department of Commerce showing the favorable balance of high technology exports over imports.

“Our industry’s involvement in international trade,” he says, “has made WEMA member companies acutely aware of the need for a cohesive national trade policy which will improve our ability to compete abroad with U.S. exports and, when required, by local production. To accomplish this, we believe that legislation should be enacted which would permit the United States to; (1)  negotiate reductions of tariffs and non-tariff trade barriers; (2) take strong action against inequitable foreign trade practices; (3) respond to serious difficulties caused by imports, and (4) increase trade with the developing countries and with those areas of the world which presently lack Most-Favored-Nation status.


“The future of U.S. trade is one of the most important matters currently before the Congress. We are well aware that the recommendations of this Committee will have a great effect on U.S. foreign trade activities for many years to come”


“WEMA supports the concept and most of the specific provisions of H.R. 6767…as introduced. In our view, enactment of this legislation will improve the ability of companies within the high technology, electronics and information technology industries to sell their products in existing and in new markets abroad, while, at the same time, permit the government to deal effectively with inequitable foreign trade practices and serious import problems.”


Packard then goes through a detailed review of the bill with their recommendations in several areas. He concludes with this summary: “In conclusion, Mr. Chairman,

I would simply say that WEMA supports the concept and most of the provisions contained in H.R. 6767. We believe that this legislation will put the United States on much the same footing as our major competitors and thus enable the President to deal more effectively with our trading partners around the world. We have offered a number of suggestions—additional advice, hearings, retention of Tariff Items 806.30 and 807.00, adjustment assistance for firms, etc.—which we believe will strengthen the bill. We hope you will consider these suggestions carefully in executive session.


“With respect to the various tax proposals before your committee, WEMA urges the Congress not  to enact tax rules and regulations which would handicap U.S. firms operating abroad, and permit our foreign competitors to seize market opportunities to the ultimate detriment of U.S. industry and labor. The United States has a responsibility to the developing countries of the world. It is in this context that I particularly object to the ‘tax holiday’ provisions of the Treasury Department’s proposals.


“WEMA believes that any changes in our tax laws affecting U.S. trade and U.S. firms operating abroad should be made with the objectives of increasing the export of U.S.-made products, parts and components and permitting U.S. companies to operate abroad on the same basis as their foreign competitors. Action along these lines in the tax area would be consistent with the objectives of H.R. 6767.


“This concludes our formal presentation, we will be pleased to respond to any questions the committee may have.”



Box 3, Folder 41 – General Speeches


June 8, 1973, Commencement Address, Southern Colorado State College, Pueblo, CO


6/8/73, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech


Packard tells his audience a short story about his trip back to Pueblo after he graduated from Stanford in 1934. He describes driving alone through Reno, Nevada about two in the morning and getting stopped for speeding. He says the policeman took him back to the station where Packard explained he had only a couple of dollars with him to get to Pueblo. So the police let him go without a fine, but with a warning to drive a little slower. He says he tells them this story “to suggest that my financial situation…was not much different from the financial situation of a great many young men and young women in the graduating classes across America in 1973, probably, on a relative basis, not as good as most of you in this class here today.


“It was almost forty years ago when I was a member of a graduating class, listening as you are here today to a commencement speaker.


“ I do not even remember who my commencement speaker was – much less what he said. And I don’t really expect any more of you.”


Packard says that “Had my commencement speaker been able to predict accurately and describe to my graduating class what was to happen in this world from 1934 until 1973 no one would have believed him.”


And he runs through several of the things this hypothetical commencement speaker would have had to describe happening in the next forty years:  color TV, satellites, nuclear power and bombs, antibiotics, organ transplants, increase in life expectancy, jet aircraft, moon walks.


So Packard says that even if he could accurately predict what was going to happen in the next forty years no one would believe him – so he won’t  attempt it.


“What I can say with great assurance is that there will be at least as much exciting progress in all aspects of human affairs in the next forty years as there has been in the past. In all probability there will be more.


“There will probably be more because it is a basic law of nature that the rate of change is proportional to the level of activity. As the base from which change is generated grows larger, there is a higher likelihood of change becoming even more rapid and more significant.”


However Packard says “…some thoughtful people are beginning to question the value of the kind of progress we have seen in the world since 1934. There are clearly limits to the physical growth of our civilization at some point. This has been recognized already in the aspect of population growth in relation to economic growth. Population control is essential if we want to assure real material progress for the individual in the future. We can at some time run out of raw materials and of energy, and to an increasing degree changes which are in the nature of growth will have to be constrained by concerted effort.”


Packard says there can be progress and change in the area of ideas too, and “Perhaps as we find that we must consciously restrain physical growth in some areas, we will find ways to accellerate [sic] growth in areas which will contribute to the quality of our civilization – not just to the growth of its physical aspects..


Whatever the changes ahead Packard predicts “…they will be, whatever their nature, just as challenging and just as exciting for your generation as they have been for mine.


“There are also some important things which will remain the same. The essential stabilizing influence in our society, of a high moral law, expressed most often through religion or a widespread personal commitment to a common code of ethics or morality, is no less important today than it has been for centuries in the past. When this commitment is strong and widespread the society as a whole is strong and healthy. When there is a reduction in the commitment to high moral standards, whether expressed through formal religion or commonly accepted personal standards, the society as a whole suffers. There have been many examples of such lapses throughout history, and that is what our country is suffering from today in the Watergate affair.


“Fortunately, the reaction of the society to a lapse in morality can be in the form of a recommitment to high moral standards, and I am convinced that is the way Watergate must come out.”


“I am convinced that Watergate is a last aberration of the decade of the 1960s and our nation will rebound with a stronger commitment to the need for a high level of moral law.


“The importance of knowledge is another invariant in a world of change. You men and women in this graduation class are being honored today because you have completed a significant step in acquiring the knowledge that will turn out to be one of your most valuable possessions.


“You will come to realize that it is not the degree or certificate you have received that is important. What is important is whether you have, in fact, acquired useful knowledge during your course of study and whether you have learned that it is essential to continue to acquire knowledge throughout your lifetime. Some of you may become scholars and the pursuit of knowledge will be the objective of your life work. Others, perhaps most, will use their knowledge to accomplish their life work in practical ways.


“A very important ingredient of success and satisfaction in life has, for me at least, been in being able to do something useful. The pursuit of knowledge for me has always been to be able to do something useful. I am sure many of you will have the same experience – and it will bring you much satisfaction, if in whatever you do you do it well. That requires that you know as much as possible about your field of endeavor, whatever it may be. This community is indeed fortunate to have this fine College here, not only because of the broad range of courses available for the full time students, but also because of the excellent opportunity this school provides for a continuing education in a great variety of important subjects.


“As each of you step on in your life adventure you will find the same kind of an exciting, rapidly changing world that I found after my graduation in 1934. You will find the knowledge you have acquired will serve you well and you must add to it whenever you can.


“I would like to leave you with a thought of David Starr Jordan that made a great impression on me when I was a college student. Dr. Jordan expressed it this way – ‘the most important commitment that every young person can have is to the person he or she will become in the future’, in the next ten, twenty, thirty, forty or more years.


“Thank you again for asking me to be with you today. Good luck and God bless you, each and every one.”


6/8/73, audio tape recording of Packard giving this speech

6/8/73, Printed program of the Commencement exercise

Fall 1973, Publication of SCSC with picture of Packard on the cover and a review of his speech inside along with other articles related to the school



Box 3, Folder 42 – General Speeches


August 25, 1973, Silver Helmet Defense Award, AMVETS 29th National Convention, St. Louis, MO


8/25/73, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech


Packard’s speech is about Watergate. He calls it “this terrible problem we’re having here in America….Our government in Washington has been almost at a standstill because of Watergate. Our great country is being paralyzed by the emotional, irrational response to this tragic event.


“It is most unfortunate that this trouble has come at a time when the leadership of the United States is sorely needed throughout the world – in Europe, in the Mid-East, and in Asia. No country in the world except the United States is able to provide the strong enlightened leadership so necessary to assure a generation of peace, prosperity and progress throughout the world, for the remainder of the twentieth century and on into the twenty-first.,


“President Nixon, in his first four years, moved our country into this great opportunity, and he has already taken the first bold and important steps into the future. The United States has never in recent decades commanded the respect throughout the world it holds today – we have never had a better opportunity to lead the way – we may never have it again if we fail to grasp this opportunity.”


Calling Watergate a “tragedy,” Packard says “It is, indeed, a sad drama to see this attempt on the part of so many to discredit and even destroy President Nixon – and for what? To satisfy a pang of personal vanity before a TV camera? To develop a political image for the future? To openly vent, to a mass audience, personal feelings, personal bitterness – all disguised under a thin veneer of political courtesy?”


Granting that some may be operating under well meaning intentions, “…it is not good for America. The sooner we bring this tragicomedy to an end, the better it will be for our country. I do not deny that there are lessons to be learned from Watergate, and people to be punished – but we do not need to destroy the United States in the process. And that is what I believe can happen if we don’t stop these nonsensical hearings and self-dealing recriminations, and get on with the important jobs that need to be done.”


Packard urges everyone in his audience to write or wire Senator Ervin and his committee members and tell them you believe that no good will be served by continuing these hearings – that there are sufficient and capable judicial avenues to conduct the investigation and dispense justice. Tell them that you feel there is much more important Senate work to occupy their time and efforts….And encourage your friends to do the same.


“The future of America is in jeopardy. You who have dedicated your lives to the security of America have a great stake in this issue. You must step out and be heard. You who have built the strength and respect that makes the United States the greatest, the most powerful, and the most influential country the world has ever seen must not let politics and propaganda and bias in some elements of the press destroy your President and your country.”


“Strength means military strength as well as economic and moral strength. It will be no small task to maintain the military strength we must have for the future with the continuing anti-military bias in many segments of the country. The practical problems of all volunteer forces, and limited funds for procurement, will make the job difficult. It will require new thinking to achieve more effective use of personnel and money. It will require that we maintain our lead in military technology. But it can be done. I am convinced that none of the problems involved maintaining the military strength we need to assure world leadership of the United States are insurmountable.


“But, we must put Watergate aside if we are to direct our energies to the critical foreign and domestic issues that face our nation. Let’s bring the select Senate committee hearings nonsense to an end. Let’s put America first, and politics last.


“Thank you for this opportunity to be with you tonight – and thank you for the Silver Helmet Award.”



8/25/73, Printed program for the Awards Banquet

3/27/71, Printed copy of the program for the 26th National Convention in 1971

10/30/72, Letter to Packard from Joseph R. Sanson, National Commander, Amvets, saying they would like to present Packard with the Silver Helmet Award

11/6/72, Copy of a letter from Packard to Joseph Sanson saying he will accept the award

2/2/73, Letter to Packard from Joseph Sanson giving details of the Banquet and asking for biographical information

6/28/73, Letter to Packard from Lean Sanchez, Amvets, giving details of the Award Banquet

8/27/73, Copy of a letter from Packard to Joseph Sanson  saying it was a pleasure for he and Mrs. Packard to attend the Award Banquet and thanking them for the Award

Undated, Copy of printed page from unnamed publication covering Packard’s speech




Box 3, Folder 43 – General Speeches


Oct. 17, 1973, Corporate Support of the Private Universities, University Club, New York City


10/17/73, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech


Packard says he is pleased to be here and to talk about corporations and private universities – a subject with which he has been involved, both as a corporate giver and as a university trustee, for nearly two decades. He adds that he would like to point out that his views on the subject of corporate support of private universities have been somewhat modified since those he held in the 1950s. And it is this change that he talks about in this speech.


Packard tells of his first joining the Committee for Corporate Support of American Universities during its formative years some fifteen years prior. “I must say I was more than a slightly awed to be asked to join the distinguished group of founding members. I knew most of the men by name and reputation only. They had wanted another member from the W3st Coast, and they were willing to accept me on the recommendation of one of their members, Mr. James B. Black, chairman of PG&E, and a Stanford trustee with me at the time.”


“Each member [of the committee] had two essential qualifications – a strong personal interest in one or more of the major private universities, and a personal acquaintanceship with many of the directors and officers of the major corporations of America.


“I think it is a great tribute to the work that was done by those founding members that the committee is still very much alive, active, and effective.”


Packard says he is not sure how the committee got started. He presumes the private universities were facing “a major financial crisis. This was not a difficult situation to establish, for there has been no time in the last three decades when the private universities could not claim a major financial crisis –and they will probably continue to do so throughout the foreseeable future.


“ In addition, each member was well aware of the very many ways in which the universities, both public and private, had contributed to the growth and prosperity of American business and industry over the years – and they all believed a special case could be made for increased support of private universities by American companies.”


Packard suspects that a third reason for the formation of the committee might have been the thought that “…it just might be more effective working for the cause of the private universities together, rather than each working only for his own alma mater….Just because the Chairman of Corporation X was a Harvard man did not necessarily make a good case [to contribute only to Harvard]. A better case was needed, and that was what the committee set out to develop.”


“By the late 1950s …corporate support of education – in one form or another – had become reasonably common, reasonably well accepted by stockholders, and generally expected by the general public – at least by those who were college and university graduates. Estimates of the amount of corporate money going to colleges and universities throughout America in 1958 was in the range of $10 million.


“Thus, there was broad and increasing corporate support for higher education, but could a special case be made for the major private universities? This was the challenge that faced the committee.


“It was quickly apparent that one of the first problems to be encountered would be to decide which universities should be included on the recommended list. Deliberations on this questions brought about some guidelines which were carefully thought out. With one exception, which I will discuss in more detail, the guidelines have stood the test of time very well.”


Packard reviews these guidelines – the first being that the university to be supported should be a private university. “It was recognized that many state universities met the same standards of excellence as the leading private universities, but corporations were already doing their part through payment of taxes and should not be expected to provide additional support.”


“Second, the private university to be supported should have graduate schools of distinction covering a broad range of studies. Graduate schools were considered especially important to corporations for four reasons:


“They were a major source of professional people who would be needed by the corporation.

“They were the centers of important research.

“They were a major source of the PhDs and professors for all levels of higher education in America and their influence was thus greatly magnified.

“[The] major private universities gave important leadership to all of higher education in America in terms of educational policy and behavior as well as in knowledge and in men and women to fill the professorial chairs. These were the ‘bell cow’ universities, and the lesser institutions all across the country would do well to follow the lead of these distinguished institutions. Corporations then, by supporting these ‘bell cow’ universities, could help raise the standards of all the colleges and universities in America, a role clearly well justified for the corporate dollar.”


Packard says the committee added three other stipulations to these guidelines:


“…the aid to these select private universities should be over and above what the corporation was already doing for education.


“…the corporation should select the recipients for support, and [thirdly] give the money directly to the universities, not through the committee.


“The committee recommended that the amount given to any of the universities should be substantial, and that it should be continuous over a period of years.”


And another recommendation was that “the corporate gifts to these universities should have no restriction on the use of the funds.”


Packard says these policies and guidelines are still in effect and he can recommend them – with one exception. “The only exception I would make,” he says, “is the guideline stating that corporate funds given to private universities should be unrestricted in their use by the university.


“I supported that proposition ten years ago because I, like the other members of the committee, was a university trustee – and I thought trustees knew best how a corporate contribution should be used and that trustees had substantial control over how funds were used. In retrospect, that point was probably debatable then It seems to me that it is even more so today.


“I recognize that for the university, unrestricted money is most valuable. It allows the trustees, or the administration, or the faculty to undertake programs which might otherwise not attract financial support from the outside. It does not necessarily follow, however, that unrestricted money, used as it has been used, is always in the interest of the corporation.


“That, however, is precisely what the corporate officer considering a contribution to a university should be thinking about. Should our corporation make an unrestricted contribution and leave it to the trustees or the administration or the faculty to decide how the money should be used, or do we have a responsibility to our stockholders to be sure the money contributed will, in some defensible way, benefit our corporation? “


Packard say that “Fifteen or twenty years ago the trustees of the major private universities could and did play a role in university policy. Most trustees were also corporate officers. It is quite understandable then that we all felt comfortable in recommending that corporate funds be unrestricted.


“The situation is vastly different today. Almost every board of trustees must have its members selected from a wide array of constituents: students, faculty, alumni, various ethnic groups, etc. Moreover, much of the power has gone to the faculty, and too often faculty decisions are determined by a militant minority of the faculty.


“All this may be good for our private universities. I do not believe so, but that is not the point I want to make with you today. I believe the case for a corporation giving unrestricted funds to a private university can no longer be supported.


Packard goes back to the committee’s guidelines to see how they are applied in practice. “First we have said these universities are a major source of the professional people our corporations will need for their future growth and progress. The problem with the unrestricted gift here is that it is not likely to be used to help a professional school.” Packard says the Graduate School of Business at Stanford gets no funds from unrestricted gifts – and he believes the same situation exists at Harvard Business School.


“To the extent a corporate contribution is to be justified on the basis that it helps assure a continuing supply of professional people, the funds must be designated specifically for the professional schools you want to support if you want to be certain.


“A second premise to justify corporate support for universities is that they are in the business of generating new knowledge through research. Here again, very little unrestricted money is directed to support the many excellent research programs one finds at our private universities. Most of the research at these universities is supported by the government or by large foundations. I happen to believe these universities would be better off if more of their research was supported by business and less by the government. If you should happen to agree, take time to find an area of research you believe to be important to your company, and support it on a specific basis.


“The third guideline has to do with the fact that these major universities are an important source of professors for all of higher education. This is of courses true, and this greatly magnifies the impact of these great private schools.


“Because of this magnifying factor I believe the corporation executive has a double responsibility to make sure his dollars are constructive rather than destructive – and there is no way to do this with unrestricted money.”


Packard cites a 1969 statement by a professor Richard Flacks, who he says is“…a top intellectual figure in the Students for a Democratic Society.” Packard says the professor describes how the distribution of the student protest movement started with the ‘prestigious private universities’ and then trickled on down to ‘schools of lower prestige and quality.’


Packard advises the “If  you want to be sure your funds do not have this kind of multiplying effect, restrict them to those areas you believe are educating the right kind of professors.


“The fourth premise, and the only one so far which might possibly be used to justify unrestricted corporate gifts, is that the great private universities give distinctive leadership to all of higher education in America – the ‘bell cow’ theory. This premise sounded very convincing to me in 1959. In 1973 I’m much less sure.


“Is kicking ROTC programs off the campus the kind of leadership we need?

“Is prohibiting business from recruiting on the campus the kind of leadership we need?

“Should these universities serve as haven for radicals who want to destroy the free enterprise system?

“Should students be taught that American corporations are evil and deserve to be brought under government control?

“Should a board of trustees sit as sole judge of the social responsibility of each American corporation – and use this as a basis for deciding whether its stock should be held in the university portfolio?”


“I say to you today, thank God most of the colleges and universities over this great country of ours have not blindly followed the lead of some of the ‘bell cows’ we touted ten or fifteen years ago.


“Clearly then, unrestricted corporate contributions cannot be supported on the basis of the other guidelines this committee has adopted. I do not believe there is any way they can be justified.”


Packard recognizes that some of those who argue for unrestricted grants say that universities should be ‘ivory towers’ outside the affairs of the world. He examines this point:


“These same people like to call a university a community of scholars which, of course, it should be. In a university these scholars are grouped together in Schools and Departments. Sometimes we find groupings of scholars with the university who are hostile to business and the free enterprise system. All too often these groupings tend to perpetuate themselves because they attract professors in the same mold. Departments of Economics are particularly vulnerable, as are Departments of Religion and other areas of Humanities. I happen to believe that such hostile groups of scholars are, to a large degree, responsible for the anti-business bias of many of our young people today. And I do not believe it is in the corporate interest to support them – which is what we do to a greater or a lesser degreed with unrestricted funds.


“I believe we will do more in the interest of our corporations and just as much for the universities by being specific in designating where our funds go.


“A university is strong to the extent its schools and departments are strong. In the future, let’s focus our m0jey and our energy on those schools and departments which are strong and which also contribute in some specific way to our individual companies, or to the general welfare of our free enterprise system. On this basis I believe more corporate support for these great private universities can be justified 8n the future. I commend this to you as a wise and productive basis for future corporate policy in relation to the major private universities of America.”


10/17/73, Printed copy of Packard’s speech in pamphlet format

5/25/73, Copy of a letter to Roger Lewis, President of AMTRAK from Alfred Blum, University of Chicago, giving him some materials to talk to Packard about in preparation of his forthcoming speech

5/31/73, Letter to Packard from Roger Lewis giving him some background material and urging him to agree to give the speech


Copy of list of nominees for the CCSAU membership

Copy of description of CCSAU history and purpose

Copy of list of some Students for a Democratic Society leaders


August 1970, Copy of printed pamphlet from the Committee for Corporate Support of American Universities giving their philosophy

2/25-27/73, Copy of typewritten paper titled “Highlights from the 1973 Business & society Seminar at the California State University, San Francisco

10/25/73, Copy of a letter and article by Calvin Wood supporting Packard

10/25/73, Letter to Packard from Jon Sheehan saying he agrees with Packa