NEED TO BE ON GUARD AGAINST COMMUNIST SYMBOLISM

Senator THURMOND. Just last Friday we had as a witness Dr. Sala, who is, in my opinion, one of the most outstanding experts in the Army on propaganda and subversive techniques.

I showed Dr. Sala a half dozen examples of hidden propaganda symbolism such as this one. Dr. Sala agreed that this was an area of subversion with which Americans were totally unfamiliar.

I would like to get your comments on this. Do you feel that that is the case?

Commander WADSWORTH. I would agree.

Senator THURMOND. And that we must understand these methods to be on guard against Communist subversion, propaganda, and infiltration?

Commander WADSWORTH. Yes, sir, I would agree with him on that completely.

Senator THURMOND. And you feel that the people should be on guard about such materials?

Commander WADSWORTH. Yes, sir.

Senator THURMOND. Of course, I think you will agree that such symbolism is not intended for the average American. These are intended to be morale boosters which flow out through the worldwide. network of agents, subversives, propagandists, and rank and file Communist Party members.

If you visualize this international Communist movement as a football team which knows its signals, has its disciplines and believes that it is winning, you then have the proper analysis of what Communist symbolism does to the morale of world communism.

Commander Wadsworth, I wish you would give us your reaction to this evaluation of the subtleties of Communist propaganda.

Commander WADSWORTH. I think the evaluation is accurate, and I am sure that their ability to disseminate this type of material must give them every confidence and satisfaction that they can do so before our noses with hardly any restraint whatsoever.

INCLUSION OF WASHINGTON POST EDITORIAL IN REFUSAL TO

SUPPLY "OPERATION ABOLITION"

Senator THURMOND. Commander, I would like now to turn to your experience and knowledge of the leadership in educational programs at Great Lakes Naval Training Center.

We have previously discussed with Admiral Heyward, whom I believe you know, the situation about the film "Operation Abolition," which was requested by you in November 1960. Is that correct? Commander WADSWORTH. Yes, sir.

Senator THURMOND. We have already been told that the inclusion of the Washington Post editorial, which was highly critical of the film "Operation Abolition," was not intended to convey to the command at Great Lakes the idea that the Department of the Navy used the Washington Post as policy guidance on "Operation Abolition." I think it would be most unfortunate if our men in uniform accepted personal opinions and partisan views such as expressed by the Post about the film "Operation Abolition."

80752-62-pt. 5-3

Now, would you tell us, Commander, of your reaction when you received the Department of the Navy letter dated December 13, 1960, which included the Washington Post editorial?

Commander WADSWORTH. I could only wonder

Senator THURMOND. I want you to be perfectly frank and tell us now just what your reaction was.

Commander WADSWORTH. I think my initial remark was something to the order of, "I wonder who is making Navy Department policy, the Navy Department or the Washington Post."

I attributed the correspondence, hopefully, to ignorance, rather than attributing it to an attempt to misguide me in the field, because I was not misguided by it. I hope it was ignorance.

Senator THURMOND. You knew it was a documented film and you wanted to use it, did you not?

Commander WADSWORTH. Yes, sir.

Senator THURMOND. You knew that the editorial by the Post was erroneous and misleading, and the inclusion of this editorial in official Navy correspondence made you wonder about the intention of the Navy in projecting this erroneous information.

But it did not deceive you, as I understand it?
Commander WADSWORTH. No, sir.

GREAT LAKES PROCURED AND USED PRIVATELY OWNED COPY OF

"OPERATION ABOLITION"

Senator THURMOND. You had planned to use this film in official programs at Great Lakes Naval Training Center, and I want to congratulate you for your initiative. Unfortunately, of course, you failed to obtain this film, as indicated in the Navy reply.

Did you procure a copy of this film from other sources?

Commander WADSWORTH. It so happened that at the time when the request was submitted, we had available for our use a copy of the film which was purchased by a member of the seminar team out of his own pocket, and the command felt reluctant to continue to use this film that was this man's private property.

The command thought highly enough of the film to wish to obtain one of its own and hence made the request.

As a consequence, within the framework of the existing policy relating to showing of this film, we continued to show it. However, it is still a privately owned film and was not procured through the Navy Department.

APPRAISAL OF "OPERATION ABOLITION"

Senator THURMOND. It was your feeling that the film was so important that it should not be missed in the training program? Commander WADSWORTH. I think the film was excellent; yes, sir. Senator THURMOND. It actually showed the Communists at work? Commander WADSWORTH. Yes, sir; and with authentic identifica

tion.

Senator THURMOND. The House Committee on Un-American Activities again attested to its accuracy in October 1961, when it issued a special pamphlet outlining basic facts about "Operation Abolition." Is that right?

Commander WADSWORTH. Yes, sir.

Senator THURMOND. Do you feel this would be a good film for every American to see, those in service and out of service?

Commander WADSWORTH. In view of the controversy which has raged over the film, I feel that in order for the film to be shown advantageously, that it should be accompanied by an introduction calling attention to the objections to the film which have emanated from some circles, and also calling attention to the documentary evidence to the contrary, in order to set the proper backdrop for the showing of the film.

And unless this is done at the present time, because of the controversy, there is a possibility of the film not having the desired effect. Senator THURMOND. In other words, you think the background, the propaganda campaign against it and the truth about the film, should be brought out so that those who see it will know the whole story? Commander WADSWORTH. Yes, sir.

Senator THURMOND. I gather the film struck a responsive chord with you because of your exposure to the techniques of Communist subversion and propaganda. You had observed such techniques during your assignment overseas?

Commander WADSWORTH. Yes, sir.

Senator THURMOND. Do you mean, Commander, that Americans who have not been exposed to such experiences are apt to miss even the more obvious techniques of agitation and infiltration as demonstrated in the film?

Commander WADSWORTH. Very likely, yes, sir, most probably, in

fact.

Senator THURMOND. And this film demonstrates the very techniques of agitation which are vitally important for service people to see?

Commander WADSWORTH. Yes, sir.

Senator THURMOND. As well as civilians.

Is there anything else you want to say about the use of the film "Operation Abolition" in naval training, especially from the viewpoint of recognizing the techniques of the enemy, especially in intelligence training?

Commander WADSWORTH. The present policy precludes use of the film in a formal training situation, if I am not mistaken. Consequently, the only situation in which we can show the film, even to service personnel, is in an extracurricular fashion with a voluntary audience, so that we are not able to insure that all of those who should see it will, in fact, have the opportunity to see it.

Senator THURMOND. You have seen a great many training films about communism. Of all the films you have seen, do you consider this one of the best films showing the Communist techniques of subversion and propaganda?

Commander WADSWORTH. Yes, sir; principally because most of the training films are animated and are not on-the-spot scenes. This film is unique in that it cites an actual situation, and I think this makes it particularly valuable.

Senator THURMOND. A true portrayal of what occurred out there. Commander WADSWORTH. Yes, sir.

Senator THURMOND. It showed the Communists at work.

CONTENT AND DISPOSITION OF WADSWORTH LETTER ON COMBATING

COMMUNISM

Now, the next item is a letter you wrote on December 10, 1960, which expressed several ideas on making instructions on communism more penetrating.

This suggestion included the idea that to fight communism successfully, we must have pride in ourselves, and I quote

increase smartness of military formations, increase pride and concern for the improvement of barracks conditions, enthusiasm for exercising voting rights, and arriving at intelligent or considered decision in so doing, as well as a growing interest and support of efforts to instill in the local civilan community a concern for and understandng of the Communist threat and a desire to do something about it.

I believe you wrote that; did you not, Commander?
Commander WADSWORTH. Yes, sir.

Senator THURMOND. I have a feeling that you expressed this thought in this careful and considerate language because of your deep understanding of how the enemy works.

We cannot beat him simply by being anti-Communist. We must have something better than he has, and this is what you had expressed in your letter. I congratulate you for this comment and numerous others in this same recommendation.

Now, the letter was forwarded through Captain Zimanski, who endorsed your ideas, and in paragraph 4 stated:

This command urgently recommends that Navy's leadership program in the present generation be aimed at the Nation's immediate problem-the war against communism. Such an emphasis is completely consistent with the precepts of General Order No. 21, and particularly with regard to moral responsibility. Did you see this comment?

Commander WADSWORTH. Yes, sir.

Senator THURMOND. The next step in the channeling of this correspondence was for Captain Ford to approve your recommendations on December 16, 1960, with an exceptionally fine and concise statement of our problem in paragraph 2, where he stated:

The commander, Naval Training Center, strongly concurs in the principle of emphasizing the dangers of international communism in appealing to personnel on a patriotic rather than a materialistic basis.

I think Captain Ford struck the keynote in his reference to our materialistic preoccupation. The Communists use this to benefit their

causes.

Do you not agree?

Commander WADSWORTH. Yes, sir.

Senator THURMOND. There is an undated endorsement by Captain Pelling who submitted your ideas to the Secretary of the Cold War Advisory Panel, OP-614D, room 4D558, Pentagon, Washington, D.C.

I take this time to detail the channeling of your letter because it shows, in my opinion, an awkward manner in which the Navy dealt with the enthusiasm and obvious dedication expressed in your original letter.

Now, the Secretary of the Cold War Advisory Panel forwarded your correspondence to the Chief of Naval Personnel on March 3. 1961. In paragraph 2 the statement is made that

the Panel has endorsed several of these ideas in recent meetings and recommends that the BuPers guest panelists take them for action and further study.

Commander, do you know what they meant by this comment? Commander WADSWORTH. If I have not misunderstood you, I believe the situation is that the Cold War Advisory Panel endorsed the suggestions, but, inasmuch as the Cold War Advisory Panel is not an action agency, it must forward any suggestions that it considers to have merit to the appropriate section in the Navy Department for action, and then it would be up to that particular section to act or not to act in light of all considerations, Senator.

Senator THURMOND. Who are the "BuPers guest panelists?" Commander WADSWORTH. Specifically, I am unable to state. I do not know, sir.

Senator THURMOND. You do not know whether they are more experienced than you are on evaluating your recommendations? Commander WADSWORTH. No, sir, I do not.

Senator THURMOND. Next on March 29, 1961, the Chief of Naval Personnel for Leadership returned your correspondence to the Secretary of the Cold War Advisory Panel. The comments are negative and direct your attention to other materials that apparently cover suggestions similar to those made by you.

Commander, we have studied the books referred to in the suggestions of the Cold War Advisory Panel, and I believe, what you were looking for was hard-hitting material, such as some of the material I have in my hand like "Know Your Communist Enemy," "Communism Speaks," and "Armed Forces Talk." You see these? All of these were discontinued for a variety of reasons which we have heard from witnesses before this subcommittee.

Most of the reasons, in my opinion, are unacceptable.

Have you seen these three publications, and would they have furnished what, in fact, you were searching for in your correspondence? Commander WADSWORTH. I have seen in the past, I have seen "Armed Forces Talk," but the other two publications I have no recollection of having seen.

They would have been the type of thing, they would be the type of material, I judge, that we could use.

Senator THURMOND. I want to draw your attention, Commander, to the comment in paragraph 1(c) of the reply to your letter.

It states:

It is considered preferable to place principal emphasis in the leadership program on leadership rather than on anticommunism.

This is what it said in paragraph 1(c), Commander, did it not? Commander WADSWORTH. Of the basic correspondence?

Senator THURMOND. Show it to him.

Commander WADSWORTH. Oh, here it is. Yes, sir.

Senator THURMOND. Now, that is exactly what you wrote in your original recommendations, was it not?

Commander WADSWORTH. Yes, sir.

Senator THURMOND. You had spoken of "increasing the smartness of formations, pride and concern in the improvement in barracks, enthusiasm for voting rights," and only in the last sentence did you include "understanding the communist threat." Is that not correct? Commander WADSWORTH. Yes, sir.