¹ US public diplomacy has been the subject of a range of studies in the last decades; recent publications include Cull, Nicholas, The Cold War and the United States Information Agency: American Propaganda and Public Diplomacy, 1945–1989 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Osgood, Kenneth, Total Cold War: Eisenhower's Secret Propaganda Battle at Home and Abroad (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2006)Google Scholar, and Stephan, Alexander, ed., The Americanization of Europe: Culture, Diplomacy and Anti-Americanism after 1945 (New York: Berghahn Books, 2006)Google Scholar.

² The Department of State (hereafter Department) to US Information and Exchange (USIE)-Oslo, 5 March 1952, in Record Group 59, Department of State (hereafter RG 59), Central Files, 1950–54, 511.57–576, Box 2415, National Archives, College Park, Maryland (hereafter NA).

³ ‘Soft power’ has been defined as ‘getting others to want the outcomes you want’ by co-optation, not coercion. Nye, Joseph S. Jr, Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics (New York: Perseus, 2004), 5Google Scholar.

⁴ See for instance Policy Statement, Norway, Department of State, 15 Sept. 1950, RG 59, Records Relating to International Information Activities 1938–53, Box 40, NA, and FY 1961 Country Plan for Norway, USIS-Oslo to the United States Information Agency (USIA), 28 June 1960, RG 59, Bureau of Cultural Affairs, Planning and Development Staff, Country files 1955–64, Box 215, Folder R10k7, Program Proposals Oslo, NA.

⁵ According to US diplomats, Norway's foreign policy was of great importance to the policies of, for example, Denmark and Iceland, and Norway's influence within NATO and the UN was described as disproportionate to the country's size. With a so-called ‘anti-colonial tradition’ and ‘a moderately socialist government’, Norway was also described as a potential role model for possible future allies, both newly independent states and states aspiring to independence in the Third World, as well as east and central European Soviet satellites, should they break out of their bloc. See USIA Country Plan for Norway, 31 Aug. 1965, RG 59, Bureau of Cultural Affairs, Planning and Development Staff, Country files 1955–64, Box 215, Folder R10k7, Program Proposals Oslo, NA. See also the FY 1961 Country Plan for Norway, USIS-Oslo to USIA, 28 June 1960, RG 59, Bureau of Cultural Affairs, Planning and Development Staff, Country files 1955–64, Box 215, Folder R10k7, Program Proposals Oslo, NA, and Report on the Educational Exchange Program for Norway for July–December 1954, US Embassy in Oslo (hereafter Oslo) to the Department, 29 April 1955, RG 59, Bureau of Public Affairs, International Educational Exchange Service, Correspondence, Memorandums, Reports and other Records of the Program Development Staff 1951–56, Box 3, NA, and FY 1963 Annual Report on the Educational Exchange Program, Oslo to the Department, 25 July 1963, in RG 59, Records of the Bureau of Cultural Affairs – Records Relating to the Evaluation of Cultural Programs and to Staff Visits Overseas 1952–60, Box 6, Folder Oslo (Eur) PRS, NA. Norway also played a mediating role between neutral Sweden and NATO: see Petersson, Magnus, ‘Brödrafolkens väl’: Svensk-norska säkerhetsrelationer 1949–1969 (Stockholm: Santérus, 2003)Google Scholar.

⁶ The post-war policy of non-alignment should be seen in relation to Norway's positions before and during the Second World War. Prior to the attack on (and subsequent occupation of) Norway by Nazi Germany on 9 April 1940, Norway's official policy had been one of neutrality. The Norwegian government-in-exile brought the country into the Grand Alliance, a participation that has been described as ‘primarily a British–Norwegian affair’. See Riste, Olav, Norway's Foreign Relations – A History (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 2001), 181Google Scholar.

⁷ Ibid., 205. See also Lundestad, Geir, America, Scandinavia and the Cold War, 1945–1949 (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1980)Google Scholar.

⁸ Within this ‘alliance’, security issues (such as Norwegian rearmament, air bases and military intelligence) were more important than general political or economic issues. See Eriksen, Knut Einar and Pharo, Helge, Kald krig og internasjonalisering, 1949–1965, Norsk utenrikspolitikks historie, Bind 5 (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1997), 77–8Google Scholar.

⁹ See Cole, Wayne S., Norway and the United States 1905–1955: Two Democracies in Peace and War (Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1989)Google Scholar; and Frode Liland, ‘De som elsket Amerika: Kollektive forestillinger om Amerika i Norge 1945–49’, M.A. thesis, University of Oslo, 1992. Concerning migration, between 1825 and 1925 approximately 800,000 Norwegians emigrated to the United States (and around a quarter of these re-migrated). In relative figures, the only European country with a larger emigration than Norway was Ireland.

¹⁰ USIE-Oslo to the Department, 1 Sept. 1950, in RG 59, Central Files, 1950–4, 511.57–576, Box 2414, NA.

¹¹ Three representatives of the party were, however, re-elected in the 1953 parliamentary elections and one in the election of 1957, the last year in which the party won a seat.

¹² See USIE-Oslo to the Department, 1 Sept. 1950, in RG 59, Central Files, 1950–1954, 511.57–576, Box 2414, NA.. For a discussion of Norwegian neutralism see Stian Bones, ‘I oppdemmingspolitikkens grenseland. Nord-Norge i den kalde krigen 1947–70’, Ph.D. thesis, University of Tromsø, 2007, 159–60.

¹³ In 1950 the United States Information Service (USIS) in Norway was described as ‘a modest program in all senses of the adjective’. It suffered from a serious lack of manpower, as it consisted of five US and ten Norwegian employees. Two years later, the situation was described as acceptable, the staff now comprising nine Americans and twenty-one others, while in 1958 there were five American and eighteen Norwegian employees (two and a half positions being at the subpost in Tromsø). See Oslo to the Department, 1 Sept. 1950, in RG 59, Central Files, 1950–4, 511.57–576, Box 2414, NA; Oslo to the Department, 18 July 1951, and Oslo to the Department, 12 Sept. 1952, both in RG 59, Central Files 1950–4, 511.57–576, Box 2415, NA; and Inspection report, USIS Norway, 3 Dec. 1958, RG 306, Records of the USIA, Records of the Inspections Staff – Inspection Reports and Related Records, 1954–62, Box 7, NA. Until the establishment of the semi-independent USIA in 1953, US public diplomacy was handled by various offices within the State Department. Several activities, like the Fulbright program, continued to be the responsibility of the Department also after 1953. This organisational division on the central level was not clearly reflected in local operations like the one in Norway. Exchanges and cultural and informational activities were all taken care of within the framework of the USIS (formerly USIE). There existed a bi-national Educational Foundation (with four American and four Norwegian members, employing a half-time secretary) responsible for approving Fulbright applications. A report from 1953, however, reveals that the cultural affairs officer in Oslo spent 75 per cent of his time working with exchanges (Oslo to the Department, 27 Feb. 1953, in RG 59, Central files, 1950–54, 511.57–576, Box 2415, NA).

¹⁴ See e.g. USIE-Oslo to the Department 11 April 1951, Semi-annual evaluation report May–November, 1950, in RG 59, Central Files 1950–54, 511.57–576, Box 2415, NA.

¹⁵ Oslo to the Department, 16 May 1965, Educational and Cultural exchange, Country Program Plans and Priorities for FY 1966 and 1967, RG 59, Bureau of Cultural Affairs, Planning and development staff, Country files 1955–64, Box 215, Folder R10k9, Country Background, Oslo, NA.

¹⁶ See Annual report to Congress on the International Educational and Cultural Exchange Program Fiscal Year 1965 by the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, in RG 59, Central Files 1964–66, Box 385 Culture and Information, Education and Culture, Folder EDX 2, NA.

¹⁷ Cull, Cold War, 256. For accounts of Norwegian attitudes to Vietnam, see Riste, Foreign Relations, 260, and James Godbolt, ‘Den norske vietnambevegelsen 1967–1973’, Ph.D. thesis, University of Oslo, 2008, 24 ff.

¹⁸ See Osgood, Total Cold War, 105 ff, and Berghahn, Volker R., America and the Intellectual Cold Wars in Europe: Shepard Stone between Philanthropy, Academy, and Diplomacy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), 286 ffGoogle Scholar.

¹⁹ USIE-Oslo to the Department, 11 Jan. 1952, RG 59, Central Files, 1950–54, 511.57–576, Box 2415, NA.

²⁰ In the early 1950s, such films could be viewed by up to 80,000 individuals per month. See Country Paper for Norway, July 1950, RG 59, Records Relating to International Information Activities 1938–53, Box 41, NA.

²¹ In addition to this comes the practice of co-operating directly with Norwegian organisations or individuals that had for example policy interests that corresponded with US objectives. The aim of this article is not to trace such relations, but to explore US strategies on a more structural level.

²² Ninkovich, Frank, The Diplomacy of Ideas: US Foreign Policy and Cultural Relations 1938–1950 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 119Google Scholar.

²³ Ninkovich, Diplomacy, 167.

²⁴ Osgood, Total Cold War, 34.

²⁵ Ibid., 5 and 76–7. The increased level of sophistication did not necessarily apply, however, to the kind of psychological warfare that was carried out clandestinely, such as the ‘unattributed’ propaganda put out by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The full story of such operations in Norway remains to be written, but existing research reveals that the presence of, for example, the CIA-funded Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF) played a lesser role in Norway than in a number of other European countries. However, Haakon Lie, long-time secretary-general of the Labour Party and devoted Atlanticist and anti-communist, participated in the first congress in Berlin in 1950, and for some years was the main local contact of the CCF. Among the few documented activities of the CCF in Norway was their support for the quarterly Minervas Kvartalsskrift, published by conservative students in Oslo. See Hannemann, Matthias, ‘Kalter Kulturkrieg in Norwegen? Zum Wirken des “Kongress für kulturelle Freiheit” in Skandinavien’, NORDEUROPAforum, Zeitschrift für Politik, Wirtschaft und Kultur, new ser., 2, 2 (1999), 15–41Google Scholar; Philipsen, Ingeborg, ‘Out of Tune: The Congress for Cultural Freedom in Denmark 1953–1960’, in Scott-Smith, Giles and Krabbendam, Hans, eds., The Cultural Cold War in Western Europe 1945–1960 (London: Frank Cass, 2003), 237–53Google Scholar, and Løvhaug, Johannes W., Politikk som idékamp. Et intellektuelt gruppeportrett av Minerva-kretsen 1957–1972 (Oslo: Pax, 2007), 220–7Google Scholar.

²⁶ See Hugh Wilford, ‘Britain: In Between’ (23–43), Dag Blanck, ‘Television, Education and the Vietnam War: Sweden and the United States During the Postwar Era’ (91–114), Nils Arne Sørensen and Claus Petersen, ‘Ameri-Danes and Pro-American Anti-Americans: Cultural Americanization and Anti-Americanism in Denmark after 1945’ (115–46), and Günter Bischof, ‘Two Sides of the Coin: The Americanization of Austria and Austrian Anti-Americanism’ (147–81), all in Stephan, Americanization. See also Wagnleitner, Reinhold, Coca-colonization and the Cold War: The Cultural Mission of the United States in Austria after the Second World War (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1994)Google Scholar. Efforts to reach audiences in eastern Europe are described as dominated by other means, such as broadcasting, publications and, to the extent possible, exhibitions and cultural presentations. See Marsha Siefert, ‘From Cold War to Wary Peace: American Culture in the USSR and Russia’ (185–217), and Andrzej Antoszek and Kate Delaney, ‘Poland: Transmissions and Translations’ (218–50), both in Stephan, Americanization; and Hixson, Walter, Parting the Curtain: Propaganda, Culture and the Cold War 1945–61 (London: Macmillan, 1997)Google Scholar.

²⁷ See, e.g., Pells, Richard, Not Like US: How Europeans Have Loved, Hated, and Transformed American Culture Since World War II (New York: Basic Books, 1997), 61–2Google Scholar; Cull, Cold War; and Scott-Smith, Giles, Networks of Empire: The US State Department's Foreign Leader Program in the Netherlands, France and Britain 1950–1970 (Brussels: P.I.E Peter Lang, 2008), 22CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁸ Scott-Smith, Networks, 59–60. Estimates concerning the exchange programmes in West Germany and Austria illustrate how far-reaching such a multiplying effect could be on the personal level, as they suggest that each returning grantee spoke to an average of 150 people after their stay in the United States: Bischof, ‘Two Sides’, 162.

²⁹ Sørensen and Petersen, ‘Ameri-Danes’, 118. In this chapter the authors also use the term ‘Americanization by proxy’ to illustrate that influences perceived of as American in many cases either had made a ‘detour’ via another European country (the United Kingdom, particularly), or, in the case of consumer goods, were ‘look-alike products’ manufactured and marketed by local agents.

³⁰ See e.g. USIE-Oslo to the Department, 25 July 1952, in RG 59, Central Files, 1950–54, 511.57–576, Box 2415, NA.

³¹ USIE-Oslo to the Department, 11 Jan. 1952, RG 59, Central Files, 1950–54, 511.57–576, Box 2415, NA.

³² I have argued elsewhere that the influence of local staff on programming increased during the 1950s, and that the room for manoeuvre of the FSO in Norway was larger in the late 1950s than, for example, during the Campaign of Truth. The increased focus on non-propagandistic approaches can be seen partly as a result of this. See Danielsen, Helge, ‘Mediating Public Diplomacy: Local Conditions and US Public Diplomacy in Norway in the 1950s’, in Etheridge, Brian and Osgood, Kenneth, eds., Washington and Beyond: Public Diplomacy and US Foreign Relations: Toward an International History (Leiden: Brill, 2009, forthcoming)Google Scholar.

³³ Oslo to the Department, 25 July 1963, in RG 59, Records of the Bureau of Cultural Affairs – Records Relating to the Evaluation of Cultural Programs and to Staff Visits Overseas 1952–60, Box 6, Folder Oslo (Eur) PRS, NA.

³⁴ Oslo to the International Information Agency, Department of State, 12 Sept. 1952, in RG 59, Central Files, 1950–54, 511.57–576, Box 2415, NA.

³⁵ See, e.g., ‘Educational Exchange: FY 1959 Annual Report’, Oslo to the Department, 22 July 1959, RG 59, Central Files, 1955–59, 511.57–576, Box 2167, NA.

³⁶ The agreement on Norwegian participation was signed as early as 25 May 1949, and in one sense the programme was a success from the very start, as a US Educational Foundation (USEF) was established and a full-scale programme organised in a very short time. On the other hand the programme was perceived by many as being mainly of benefit to the United States itself, and more or less imposed on Norway. Such attitudes were explained by a number of factors, including the difficulty of recruiting to the USEF board American members from outside the embassy, making the foundation appear as less independent than it was supposed to be. Oslo to the Department, 20 Feb. 1950, RG 59, Central Files, 1950–54, 511.57–576, Box 2416, NA.

³⁷ USIE-Oslo to the Department, 11 Jan. 1952, RG 59, Central Files, 1950–54, 511.57–576, Box 2415, NA.

³⁸ According to Fredrik Thue, the transatlantic orientation of the institute – manifested for example by a series of distinguished American visiting scholars –was motivated in part by the ambition of the ISR to become a ‘strategic bridgehead and co-ordination centre for transatlantic co-operation in the social sciences’. Fredrik W. Thue, ‘In Quest of a Democratic Social Order. The Americanization of Norwegian Social Scholarship 1918–1970’, Ph.D. thesis, University of Oslo, 2006, 338.

³⁹ Sverre Lysgaard: ‘A Study of Intercultural Contact: Norwegian Fulbright Grantees Visiting the United States’, Report (ISR, Oslo, 1954), i.

⁴⁰ See Lysgaard's sketch of the study, Enclosure to despatch from Oslo to the Department, 15 Dec. 1952, RG 59, Central Files, 1950–54, 511.57–576, Box 2416, NA.

⁴¹ Lysgaard, ‘Study of Intercultural Contact’, 130.

⁴² Ibid., 89–106.

⁴³ Ibid., 128 ff.

⁴⁴ See for instance Oslo to the Department, 2 Aug. 1954, RG 59, Central Files, 1950–54, 511.57–576, Box 2416, NA.

⁴⁵ I do not delve deeper into these issues, as they deserve (and in part have been the subject of) more thorough analyses in their own right. See, e.g., Thue, ‘Quest’.

⁴⁶ These figures appear in Lundestad, Geir, ‘Research Trends and Accomplishments in Norway on United States History’, in Hanke, Lewis, ed., Guide to the Study of United States History outside the US 1945–1980, Volume III (White Plains, New York: Kraus International Publications, 1985), 256–7Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ Oslo to the Department, 22 Aug. 1958, RG 59, Central Files, 1955–59, 511.57–576, Box 2167, NA.

⁴⁸ See for instance Oslo to the Department, 2 July 1957, and 3 June 1959, both in RG 59, Central Files, 1955–59, 511.57–576, Box 2167, NA. From the mid-1950s the USSR supplemented its existing activities (e.g. broadcasting, publications and contact with ‘friendship societies’) with a focus on trade unions and youth and student groups, whose members were invited to the USSR, individually or in groups. The US FSOs were, however, most concerned by the high quality of the cultural programme of the Soviets, fearing that US programmes did not match up to the world-class artists, orchestras, athletes and sports instructors who were sent to Norway from the USSR. Oslo to the Department, 29 April 1955, in RG 59, Central Files 1955–59, 511.57–576, Box 2166, NA.

⁴⁹ See, e.g., Annual report to Congress on the International Educational and Cultural Exchange Program Fiscal Year 1965 by the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, in RG 59, Central Files 1964–1966, Box 385 Culture and Information, Education and Culture, Folder EDX 2, NA.

⁵⁰ Oslo to the Department, 14 Sept. 1954, RG 59, Central Files, 1950–54, 511.57–576, Box 2416, NA.

⁵¹ Oslo to the Department, 3 April 1950, in RG 59, Central Files 1950–54, 511.57–576, Box 2415, NA.

⁵² One example is Torolf Elster, an FLP grantee in 1950, then editor of the monthly journal Kontakt. Elster moved on to other central media positions, first on the largest Labour daily, then in NRK (executive director 1972–81, after having been programme director of the radio branch in 1963–72).

⁵³ Scott-Smith, Networks, 32.

⁵⁴ Ibid., 56–7 (emphasis in original).

⁵⁵ Ibid., 419 ff.

⁵⁶ See, e.g., Oslo to the Department, 2 July 1957, RG 59, Central Files 1955–59, 511.57–576, Box 2167, NA. See also Danielsen, ‘Mediating’, and Bones, ‘Grenseland’.

⁵⁷ Oslo to the Department, 22 Aug. 1958, RG 59, Central Files, 1955–59, 511.57–576, Box 2167, NA.

⁵⁸ Translation of letter from Kåre Hansen, Oslo to the Department, 10 June 1959, RG 59, Central Files, 1955–59, 511.57–576, Box 2167, NA.

⁵⁹ All figures from the ‘United States Grantee Directory Fiscal Year 1965’, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, US Department of State, March 1966.

⁶⁰ Scott-Smith, Networks, 418.

⁶¹ See, e.g., Bischof, ‘Two Sides’, 162.

⁶² Alastair Robert Fischer, ‘Changing the Odds: The Influence of the State–Private Network on the Development of American Studies in Europe’, Ph.D. thesis, University of Birmingham, 2005, 8–9 and 37–8. See also Cornelis A. van Minnen and Sylvia L. Hilton, ‘The Academic Study of US History in Europe’ (7–45) and Giles Scott-Smith, ‘Laying the Foundations: US Public Diplomacy and the Promotion of American Studies in Europe’ (47–61), both in van Minnen and Hilton, eds., Teaching and Studying US History in Europe: Past, Present and Future (Amsterdam: VU University Press, 2005); Berghahn, America and the Intellectual Cold War; and Kennedy, Liam and Lucas, Scott, ‘Enduring Freedom: Public Diplomacy and US Foreign Policy’, American Quarterly, 57, 2 (2005), 309–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶³ In Denmark, for example, this took place twenty years later, in 1971, apparently due to a strong scepticism about US culture on the part of Danish politicians and educators. See Sørensen and Petersen, ‘Ameri-Danes’, 126 f.

⁶⁴ Oslo to the Department, 29 April 1955, RG 59, Bureau of Public Affairs, International Educational Exchange Service, European Country Files, 1951–56, Box 6, Folder: General reports – Norway, NA.

⁶⁵ Among the materials published were An Outline of American History and USA – its Geography and Growth, books that were published worldwide, beginning in the early 1950s and with new editions appearing throughout the post-war era. The English-language version of Outline was first introduced to Norway in 1952; a Norwegian version appeared the year after. Geography appeared in English in 1954, in Norwegian the year after. See, e.g., Oslo to the Department, 29 April 1955, RG 59, Bureau of Public Affairs, International Educational Exchange Service, Correspondence, Memorandums, Reports and other Records of the Program Development Staff 1951–56, Box 3, NA, as well as Oslo to the Department, 4 June 1954, RG 59, Central Files, 1950–54, 511.57–576, Box 2416, NA, and Oslo to USIA, 21 Feb. 1955, Bureau of Public Affairs, International Educational Exchange Service, European Country Files, 1951–56, Box 6, Folder: General reports – Norway, NA.

⁶⁶ Skard, Sigmund, American Studies in Europe: Their History and Present Organization, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1958)Google Scholar.

⁶⁷ See Oslo to the Department, 9 Jan. 1953, RG 59, Records of The Plans and Development Staff, Evaluation Branch, 1955–60, Box 45, Folder: American Studies, Madrid, Spain to Oslo, Norway, NA. See also letters from the embassy to the Department, 25 May 1954, 22 March 1956 and 1 Aug. 1956, and from USIA, Washington, to Oslo, 17 June 1954, all ibid. These letters show that Skard applied for, but did not receive, financial support from USEF-Norway in 1952 – even if the Board of the Foundation was willing to use its reserve fund to support his work. Instead, Skard received what he had applied for from the Rockefeller Foundation. In 1956 USIS-Oslo decided to support the production and publication of his volumes, a decision that was sanctioned by the USIA.

⁶⁸ See Oslo to the Department, 11 March 1958, ibid.

⁶⁹ Joint USIS-Oslo/Embassy despatch to USIA/the Department, 28 Sept. 1959, RG 59, Central Files, 1955–59, 511.57–576, Box 2167, NA.

⁷⁰ For instance, Skard used his network to secure financial support for US-related research also beyond his own institute. For example, he contributed to the establishment (in 1963) of a chair in American history at the University of Oslo, initially financed by the American Council of Learned Societies. Lundestad, ‘Research Trends’, 258, Helge Pharo, ‘The Teaching of United States History in Norwegian Universities’, in Hanke, Guide, 232–46.

⁷¹ Kennedy and Lucas, ‘Enduring’, 315.

⁷² Johnson, Walter and Colligan, Francis J., The Fulbright Program: A History (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1965), 70 ff. and 120–1Google Scholar. Both this study and that by Kennedy and Lucas deal with the national security aspects of public diplomacy, a perspective that underlines that public diplomacy is motivated by more than merely the goal of international popularity.

⁷³ See Annual report to Congress on the International Educational and Cultural Exchange Program Fiscal Year 1965 by the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, in RG 59, Central Files 1964–66, Box 385 Culture and Information, Education and Culture, Folder EDX 2, NA.

⁷⁴ ‘USIA and the target audience’, memorandum dated 28 Aug. 1973, RG 306, General Records of the USIA, Historical Collection, Subject files 1953–2000, Box 14, Folder: Policy 1973, NA.

⁷⁵ Pells, Not Like US, 84, and Johnson and Colligan, Fulbright, 81 ff.

⁷⁶ See Cull, Cold War, 221–2.

⁷⁷ ‘A Beacon of Hope – The Exchange-of-Persons Program’, report from the US Advisory Commission on International Educational and Cultural Affairs, April 1963 (emphasis in original).

⁷⁸ Ninkovich, Diplomacy; Osgood, Total Cold War, 76–7.

⁷⁹ Osgood, Total Cold War, 232 ff.

⁸⁰ See, e.g., Scott-Smith, ‘Foundations’, 53.

⁸¹ Oslo to State 23 April 1954, RG 59, Bureau of Public Affairs, International Educational Exchange Service, European Country Files, 1951–56, Box 6, Folder: Norway: Fulbright General.