James R. Fuchs Oral History Interview, Volume 2

Notice
This is a transcript of a tape-recorded interview conducted for the Harry S. Truman Library. A draft of this transcript was edited by the interviewee but only minor emendations were made; therefore, the reader should remember that this is essentially a transcript of the spoken, rather than the written word.

Numbers appearing in square brackets (ex. [45]) within the transcript indicate the pagination in the original, hardcopy version of the oral history interview.

RESTRICTIONS
This oral history transcript may be read, quoted from, cited, and reproduced for purposes of research. It may not be published in full except by permission of the Harry S. Truman Library.

Opened 1976
Harry S. Truman Library
Independence, Missouri

[1]

CURRY: You have talked a bit about establishing rapport with the interviewee. In the past you have mentioned talking at length, perhaps at lunch with your interviewee. Has that disadvantages as well as advantages?

FUCHS: There are times when your appointment is close to lunchtime, and he might suggest having lunch first, and at lunch he proceeds to tell you all that he considers to be his best stories about Truman or some other matter. Of course, nterviewees I should say here, that interviewees are initially much oriented towards their direct

[2]

relationship with the former President, if they had one. We are, of course, interested in such relationships, but we are even more interested, in most cases, in their activities in connection with programs and problems of the administration, realizing that their direct contact with the President may have been minimal Their anecdotes, of course, are often being valuable to history, illustrative of traits of the President, his manner, and his personality.

Anyway, in chit-chat before taping or at lunch, they will tell you all of their best anecdotes and of their personal relationship with the President, and sometimes deal at length with problems and events foremost in their minds. This is interesting and does help establish rapport, but then when you get to the taping of the interview and try to cover these same points, they often say, "Well, I've already

[3]

told you that," or they begin at a point, knowing you have certain background, which leaves much unclear. They will often cut short their stories in this second telling and it may be difficult, indeed, to pry the full story out of them again. So, in some ways pleasant things that transpire before an interview may be detrimental to the taped interview if one is not careful.

CURRY: You mentioned that it sometimes is hard to get across to interviewees that you're interested in their activities, unrelated as well as related, to the President. Is this a big problem?

FUCHS: Many interviewees initially approach it that way, but they soon see what your aim is, although some just don't remember much or haven't much worthwhile to say, and the interview is not as good as you had hoped it would be.

[4]

CURRY: Are there techniques to get people to talk openly about things that they'd not normally talk about?

FUCHS: There are certain things you might do. The subject must realize, of course, the good of your program. The fact that you are not gathering information for your personal writing, but only trying to gather material that is unrecorded for history is helpful. The fact that he may close parts of the material or may restrict all of it until some later date is quite helpful. With this assurance they will usually talk with some candor and spontaneity. However, there are those who never seem to let down their guard. I have found this particularly true in interviewing people who were active politically, politicians normally being reticent, it seems, to put everything in writing. They are reluctant to tell you some things that others might consider

[5]

completely innocuous. The tape recorder then, would naturally tend to inhibit such persons. But people in all positions feel that certain things are private and best left unsaid. That history really doesn't have any right to them. Yes, you do run into this problem. As I may have said before you sometimes can get them to talk by pointing out what other people have said on the same matter and they then want to get their side of the story on paper; whereas, if you didn't resort to this stratagem, they might just ask for the next question.

There are other tactics. An interviewer should, I find, be very patient and let a man think. Let the interviewee decide what he wants to say in his mind before speaking to the tape. Interviewers often abhor silence and keep prodding a person while he is really just trying to organize his thoughts. Perhaps as to whether

[6]

he wants to answer the question at all, or with how much detail or candor, or as to just what he wants to say. I think sometimes they are side-tracked if you're not willing to wait. One needs a lot of patience and forbearance in the interview process. An appeal to their pride as to what they could do for the historical record, along with the guarantee that they may edit the transcript, and may stipulate that certain things remain closed temporarily--these things make for candor.

Of course, they will speak "off the record" at times and as part of the ethics of oral history we feel honor bound to respect that even though they speak to the tape, but don't want it to go into the transcript. Often you are told to shut off the tape while "I'll tell you something." We make an effort, if it's important to history, to have them say it with the tape running telling

[7]

them to restrict it in the transcript for the time being. Sometimes we are successful and sometimes we are not.

CURRY: Do you try to bring out things for the record in the interview, that a researcher using the transcript might use as an indication of the liability of the interviewee's memory?

FUCHS: I try to initially offer as little information in a question. Just enough that the interviewee understands what you're asking. It's frequently necessary to expand on a question by supplying certain facts and certain information to prod the memory. Of course, often the question and a direct answer to it is not quite as important as what is said in the ensuing dialogue, what comes out from his memory after having been jogged by your first question, although it may not bear directly upon the question. The most

[8]

important things in an interview may come from just letting them talk.

CURRY: Do you try to determine just how closely your subject was involved in a particular situation? whether or not he's talking as an eyewitness or secondhand?

FUCHS: This is one thing we do try to establish. How close was he to the actual event? Whether he was a participant or just a close observer; whether this has been filtered through knowledge of what subsequently transpired; whether these were his thoughts at the time. We often ask if they remember what they were thinking at the time, and how they felt this was going to effect things at the time. We might also ask what now the interviewee feels should have been done, what errors were made? Yes, there is an attempt to establish what is firsthand and what is subsequent knowledge, and also what is hearsay

[9]

CURRY: How long does the process of completing an interview take? That is, preparing, taping, transcribing, reviewing, getting an agreement signed. In other words what is the time for the whole interview process?

FUCHS: Well, the interview process from the initial approach to the interviewee to the final accessioning of the transcript to our manuscript collection is lengthy. This involves assent by the interviewee, background research, perhaps a preliminary interview, the taping session or sessions, transcription of the interview, our review of the transcript, review of the transcript by the interviewee, final typing, and the making of an agreement with the interviewee as to use of the final transcript. Frequently there is a great time lag between the time that the interviewee receives the draft transcript to edit, because of the backlog in transcription and review,

[10]

and then many times there is an even greater time lag in getting the interview back from the interviewees, who are often busy individuals and find little time to devote to a review of something of this nature. Then, of course, the retyping into final form takes additional time, and with a backlog there's another lag there, so a record might be something like a year, although I think there are some that we have accomplished in a lesser period of time. We have also had some that have been out for many years, the initial interview having been done back in the early sixties. Ten years has gone by and we still have not received some transcripts for final typing, or we have not been able to obtain an agreement to make the interview available for accessioning and research use at the Library.

CURRY: What are the marks of a good interviewer, the qualities required to be a good interviewer?

[11]

FUCHS: Some of them I've already touched on, such as patience, being a good listener, but in addition, of course, they'd have to have intelligence, ability to do the background research and come up with incisive questions to elicit the information you're seeking, I suppose it entails having a somewhat pleasing personality, or at least ability to meet new people in many walks of life and establish rapport with them. You must have knowledge of the subject, yet not overwhelm them with the importance of what you know, because you’re after what they know. You can't go into an interview and be a dunderhead, but you're not there to exhibit your knowledge, you're there to find out what they recall about personalities and events. Being a good listener is very important, but it goes far beyond that.

LAGERQUIST: Will their age make a difference? Most of these people are older people, would they

[12]

prefer to be interviewed by people who are somewhat their contemporaries, would they object
to . . .

FUCHS: I never found that it was a particular handicap.

LAGERQUIST: I was thinking of a person just out of college.

FUCHS: Well, there might very well be. Sometimes an interviewee will say, "Well, you won't remember this," or "You wouldn't have knowledge of this firsthand." Some have intimated, of course, that you have only information out of books. In most cases, though, they are very kind and considerate people. I don't think it's a major factor.

One thing I might say further about the interview process, if the interviewer uses questions that are short and tries to elicit answers

[13]

to the classic questions of the reporter, who, what, why, where, when, how, and so forth, a better interview may be produced, than if long involved questions, with citation of a lot of facts involving precise events are used. Interviewees often don't even remember being involved in things that you know from the written record they spent many months dealing with.

The best interview transcript, it seems to me in many cases, is the one in which the interviewer speaks little and most of the transcript is the words of the interviewee. I've seen some that are almost the opposite. Of course, this is not to say that good questions and a certain amount of conversation is not necessary to carry forward the spontaneity of the interview. He is, of course, likely to be more communicative if he doesn't feel he's just talking to a faceless individual and into a machine, although some oral historians feel that the interviewer should

[14]

be faceless. To an extent that's right, but I don't agree fully.

CURRY: Have you had experience of your interviewee making reference to people or events and having no idea what he's talking about?

FUCHS: Yes, this certainly happens. One can't be as knowledgeable in an area in which the interviewee may have worked for a lifetime to the extent that he is, and he's bound to, now and then someone or something of which you've never heard. Sometimes, one might fake a little bit, although that normally is not the best thing to do. You might say, "I certainly would like to know about that," or "That's the first time that's come to my attention." Usually the situation can be handled without too much embarrassment.

Now, a particularly sorry situation, and an embarrassing one, is one where the interviewee

[15]

lets you know that he has written a book about something and you should have read it and somehow it escaped you. If one can truthfully say he is aware of the book, but hasn't found time to read it all, why, you're in a little better shape. This doesn't happen frequently, though.

CURRY: Does any particular incident like this come to mind?

FUCHS: It happened to me one time with a gentleman who had not written a book, but there was a book written about the project I was concerned with, and he was concerned with, and the book had come out under an obscure title and not under his name and I didn't know it existed. He started talking about "the book," and he reminded me of this in "the book" and I was not sure what "the book" was.

LAGERQUIST: What do you do when you know a person is

[16]

giving you, not intentionally, but just because he's forgetful, incorrect information. How long do you wait before you put him back on the right track?

FUCHS: Well, I would normally hear the man out, as far as that question, and say, "Well, that's all very interesting, but there is this other view of that personality or that event," whatever the case happens to be. I might say, "One writer, I've read," if that's applicable, "said that it occurred this way." Then, oftentimes, they will give it further thought and say, "Well, their remembrance of the event, or the personality, or whatever it was, is a little bit unclear, or vague in their minds, or suspect, and they would like to review the factor. Or maybe you would jog, their memory and they will say, "Oh, yes, that's the way it was," or "I 'm sure that he, having been closer," or "I'm sure,"He has a better memory than I do, his story is probably the correct

[17]

one. I'd like to check it," or something like that. Sometimes, they will go ahead and alter their story, or they'll alter it in the draft,or they might let it stand, as, "that's the way I remember it."

You don't want to be argumentative, as that might even cause termination of the interview. But if you know that the information is incorrect at the time it makes for a better interview to bring out--now I'm speaking on important points. Minor things can be ignored. It is usually better to not interrupt a man, let him tell his story.

CURRY: When you have more than one session with a particular interviewee, how do you spend your time between sessions?

FUCHS: it would be advantageous to review what went on in the first session, see where you should

[18]

have pursued certain points further. Also to recheck to see that you don't ask him to repeat things.

Frequently, however, you don't have time to do this. You are working on the questions for the next session, and you don't have time to listen to an hour or two-hour tape; or you may be preparing for another interview in the same city that's going to take place later that day or the next day.

CURRY: Is it best to have interviewers interviewing in one area at a time, like the White House or Battery D?

FUCHS: Certainly I think that an interviewer who is interviewing in a specific area can build one interview on the other and needs less research for each individual interview. He would be more conversant with the problems and be able

[19]

to conduct a better interview. Because of the exigencies of travel and so forth, however, it might necessitate that an interviewer going to a particular city do interviews in various areas with people living there. So, you might be talking to a former White House staff member in the morning and then the next day, or even that same day, be interviewing someone, for instance, who served on the Truman Committee.

There haven't been too many days where I've done more than one interview.

There is one other point. You might, between interviews, be reviewing papers that the interviewee has made accessible to you since you met him. It's preferable, of course, to have had his papers in the Library collections, and to have reviewed them there, but often that isn't the case. One feature of oral history, is that often you learn of papers the interviewee has and makes them available to you between the

[20]

first interview and the second interview session or subsequent sessions. There again because of problems and the cost involved, it isn't always practicable to spend a lot of time with papers before doing an interview, you may have to go on to another interview, and then you would have to gauge whether you would want to do the interview without thoroughly reviewing his papers, or whether it would be preferable to say, "Well, I'll do the papers and then I'll come back later." All kinds of situations arise. One time a man told me to go ahead and review his papers, which I did, and it took me about three days, and by the time the fourth day came he had left town, and I didn't get the interview done; but I did go back subsequently, and conducted the interview.

CURRY: What is one of the most interesting interviews you've ever done?

[21]

FUCHS: So many of them have been interesting for various reasons. The personality of the man or his good memory in recalling a close personal relationship with the President and numerous incidents. I think some of the interviews I've had with State Department people in regard to events in China, Chiang Kai-shek, and so forth have been very interesting; but there have been very interesting interviews with some of the White House staff members and with people who were close friends of Mr. Truman in Independence. Offhand I wouldn't want to really pick one over all the others.

CURRY: How about the funniest interview, or the funniest thing that ever happened in an interview?

FUCHS: Well, there again, there have been a number of quite humorous incidents it would be difficult

[22]

for me to dredge up. One was when the interviewee asked me whether it was going to be in color or black and white, he wanted to be dressed properly for the camera. I told him we had not yet done any video taping of interviews although now there has been some of that.

Another somewhat amusing incident occurred. In the course of the an interview the tape naturally recorded the ringing of the telephone and the gentleman picked up the phone and talked for a few minutes, and so I shut off the tape. He asked me to play it back to see where we had stopped and so, naturally, the phone rang again on the tape. He jumps up and goes over to the phone and I said, "No, Mr. So and So, that's recorded here." He sat down and we played it back again and he jumped up and ran over to the phone. The fourth time I had to grab his knee, and say, "No, this is just the tape." I was amused at that.

[23]

CURRY: Any others?

FUCHS: Then there have been interviewees who are very thoughtful and very careful with what they wanted to say, and one I remember would let as much as 30 to 45 seconds, I think even a minute at times, lapse between words. He also had a propensity to close his eyes during these moments of silence and several times I thought he had fallen asleep. It occurred so much, several times I almost fell asleep. But the amazing thing was, his sentences were well structured, and when he would pick up again after a very lengthy lapse between words he would go right on with the story as though there hadn't been a moment's hesitation.

CURRY: The Kennedy Library has received quite a bit of publicity on their oral history project. We've talked a little bit about this, but how did their

[24]

program get started?

FUCHS: Well, of course, Kennedy was young, and very active, and, to use a current term, "charismatic." Then the tragic way in which he died resulted in a great emotional feeling about him. I believe the project was initiated largely through very close friends of the President and the Kennedy family. An immediate oral history project was commenced to record the memories of all these people so shortly after the events. But in some ways it was a little too close to events, because his tragic death involved them very emotionally, and I think that the Kennedy people would agree, they received a lot of eulogistic statements about him and very little else. Eventually, when they established the program on a more firm footing, with the aid of a Carnegie grant, and eventually funding by Federal appropriations through the National Archives, they found it necessary to go back and interview many of these people--I don't

[25]

know what percentage--to get more substantial interviews. But initially they had what they termed a "crash" interview project. In this crash program, they, of course, didn't have staff interviewers, and often used friends to interview friends, and members of the administration to interview other members of the administration. I suppose classmates also interviewed other classmates, and so forth.

LAGERQUIST: Well, in some instances didn't members of the administration insist that they be interviewed by certain individuals?

FUCHS: I think that's true. Certain persons would not assent to being interviewed unless it was done by a particular individual. I suppose this has its advantages and, certainly, some disadvantages.

I might say in passing that it's somewhat

[26]

interesting that the three programs, the initial presidential library oral history projects, the Truman, Kennedy and Eisenhower ones, were all commenced within about a three year period. All three are still engaging in oral history when they can devote time and funds to it.

List of Subjects Discussed

The Oral History Interview Process

• • Interviewee qualifications, 10-12
    John F. Kennedy Library Oral History Project, 23-25
    "Off the record" claims, 6
    Patience, 5
    Privacy issue, 5-7
    Process in time, 9-10
    Quality, 3, 24
    Storytelling, 1-3
    Subject matter, 2, 18-19
    Techniques, 4-5, 12
    Transcript, 9, 13