« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
APPRAISAL OF SATURDAY EVENING POST EDITORIAL
Senator THURMOND. I do not want to leave you with the impression that all of our news media are duped to some degree. I have in my hand, for example, the editorial of the Saturday Evening Post of November of 1961, which is a very concise and accurate appraisal of "those mobs are part of the Kremlin's master plan.”
That is the title, “Those Mobs Are Part of the Kremlin's Master Plan.”
I do not know if you have seen this.
COMMUNIST PUBLICATIONS MAILED FROM SOVIET EMBASSY TO U.S. NAVY
Senator THURMOND. Colonel, an additional channel for Communist propaganda reaching our military is through the Communist publishing house, Cross-currents Press, 156 Fifth Avenue, New York City.
These people produce the type of material I have in my hand:
"Khrushchev Reports on 22d Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union" (vols. I and II) and “Program of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union," and others.
Are you familiar with those publications?
Senator THURMOND. These were mailed from the press department of the Soviet Communist Embassy in Washington to the U.S. Navy library, at Great Lakes Naval Training Center. And here is the envelope in which they came. You see that envelope. What is the address on that?
Colonel WAGASKY. The U.S. Navy, Naval Training Center Library, Building 3, Great Lakes, Ill.
Senator THURMOND. And where is it from? Colonel WAGASKY. Press Department, Embassy of the U.S.S.R., Washington 9, D.C.
Senator THURMOND. Now, this other batch of Communist propaganda addressed to the librarian was mailed from the same source to Sand Point Naval Air Station. You might want to alert Air Force librarians for this type of dissemination of Communist propaganda, or has the Air Force already alerted its commanders to this influx of propaganda ?
Colonel Wagasky. I do not know if they have done this, sir. Again, this would not be my responsibility. However, I will convey it at the first possible time.
Senator THURMOND. The booklet "Program of the Communist Party and the Soviet Union” especially could be mistakenly used as an objective text. You will note that the registration of this Soviet Communist propaganda outlet in the United States includes a comment on the page marked "A" that:
The registration does not indicate approval or disapproval of this material by the U.S. Government.
What is your interpretation of this comment ?
Colonel WAGASKY. Very clever-inferring that somebody did not take time to approve or disapprove it or
Senator THURMOND. That might indicate that we are neutral on this subject ?
Colonel WAGASKY. No question about it. That is, we did not approve it or disapprove it. That is right. Senator TUURMOND. And you give that opinion as an intelligence officer.
Colonel WAGASKY. Yes, sir; I do.
SATURDAY EVENING POST EDITORIAL:“THOSE MOBS ARE PART OF THE
KREMLIN'S MASTER PLAN"
Senator THURMOND. I have an editorial here from the Saturday Evening Post which I referred to entitled "Those Mobs Are Part of the Kremlin's Master Plan.” If there is no objection, we will place that in the record.
(The editorial referred to is as follows:)
THOSE MOBS ARE PART OF THE KREMLIN'S MASTER PLAN
Through their skillful manipulation of moves, the Communists made it impossible last month for the President of the United States to call on our ally, Japan. The "battle of the streets," decreed by Lenin, is on in a dozen areas; and in Japan, at any rate, we lost it.
Undoubtedly there were many reasons why Japanese could be herded into these violent demonstrations. Prime Minister Kishi is reportedly unpopular; many Japanese fear that American bases in their country will make Japan a sitting duck for Soviet atomic attack; some doubtless remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki and feel that they owe this country nothing, now that the shoe is on the other foot. "Neutralism" has a strong appeal to many. Perhaps the Japanese Government has failed to explain that for Japan there is no choice between alliance with the West and absorption as a Red satellite.
However, it was the Communists who organized these various discontents, picked Eisenbower and the United States as the targets, and made it plain that, in this instance at any rate, “Chairman” Khrushchev could dictate the Eisenhower itinerary.
The simple truth, which is lost on people who join things like the Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy, or urge recognition of Communist China, is that our survival is threatened by a worldwide Communist effort to discredit our leadership, exclude us from areas necessary to our defense, and set up Red satellites in the Western hemisphere. The Khrushchev billingsgate against President Eisenhower in Paris was no outburst of childish Muscovite emotion, but a signal to Communists in all critical areas to move in. They eagerly cooperated.
The "battle of the streets” has had repercussions in our own country. In San Francisco a mob of young people invaded hearings by the House Un-American Activities Committee, howled and jeered so that no witness or member of the committee could be heard. Directions for these disorders were printed in The Californian, University of California student newspaper, and circulated among the rioters. Despite evidence that the leaders of the demonstration were Communist Party members, Mayor Christopher was so impressed by their youthful exuberance that he cravenly announced that this committee of the American Congress could not again use a city building for its deliberations.
In Cuba, where the Communists set up a beachhead under the tolerant eye of United States officialdom, Communists missions including, according to The New York Times, Czech and Soviet military advisers-are busily laying their plans to box us in along the Caribbean front. The State Department, finally alerted, has made strong protests, all of them rejected by Castro, and has de ported a pair of Castro's spies. However, this useful activity was partially canceled out by a diversion concerning the lack of democracy in the Dominican Republic.
At any rate, the Organization of American States, headed by the American ambassador to that outfit, came up with a long report on the outrages committed by Trujillo, despite the fact that the old man has, whatever his blind spot on “democracy,” supported this country in the United Nations. Trujillo, to be sure, is no lily, but we must not be diverted from the fact that the danger on our Caribbean doorstep today is Cuba and not the Dominican Republic. Uninformed idealism is no substitute for national interest as a guide to foreign policy.
The Japanese episode may prove beneficial to this country if it alerts our largely indifferent populace to the “oneness” of the conflict with Communists. In an address to the probably astonished members of the graduating class at Goucher College at Baltimore, former Secretary of State Dean Acheson said this: “The first duty of a society is to survive. That is its first duty. It isn't to make the world safe for democracy or to bring about the Kingdom of Heaven on earth. It's to survive. That's the Number One necessity."
A good many of our best people still fail to understand this. As Mr. Acheson put it, “While we see, or should see, Visigoths prowling in search of plunder through the wreckage of a civilization, our lawyers talk about world peace through world law.” Perhaps that noble ideal will come into being someday, but it will hardly happen if the free world succumbs to a conspiracy which achieves its end by blackmail, the manipulation of street mobs, and the unrelenting threat of force.
STUDENT COMMITTEE FOR CIVIC LIBERTIES—"LAUGH OUT LOUD”
REPUTATION INJURED Dear Sirs:
Your editorial ["Those Mobs Are Part of the Kremlin's Master Plan," July 30] stated that “Directions for these disorders [by a mob of young people which invaded the hearings of the House Un-American Activities Committee at San Francisco] were printed in The Californinn, University of California student newspaper, and circulated among the rioters."
No directions for disorders were issued and printed at any time by The Daily Californian, which is the student newspaper at the University of California at Berkeley. A story in the May 12, 1960, issue reported that the Student Com mittee for Civil Liberties planned to picket the hearings that day and had issued a call for students to attend the rally and hearings, with the suggestion that people “laugh out loud” in the hearings when things got ridiculous.
The Daily Californian's good reputation has been injured by the statement in your editorial, and it is requested that you acknowledge that the facts are as stated above.
The Daily Californian
Berkeley, Calif. The Post did not say in its editorial that The Daily Californian issued and printed its own directions for a student demonstration. However, it is glad to have the matter clarified and acknowledges that the statements above are correct.-Ed.
Senator BARTLETT. No further questions, thank you.
CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SOURCE OF PROPAGANDA MATERIAL
Mr. KENDALL. I have one or two questions, sir.
Colonel, this question has troubled me. As I said, I have been here throughout these hearings. When we have propaganda which is contrary to our national interests, how do we determine whether it is
put out by a Communist or fellow traveler, or whether it is by sincere but fuzzyminded thinkers?
Colonel WAGASKY. We have a regular channel to go through to obtain a reading on it; namely, we go to our security office, in the Continental Air Command, who in turn goes to the base, the provost marshal's section.
Mr. KENDALL. What are the criteria that they use?
Colonel WAGASKY. The criteria, if it is an organization, first of all, the Attorney General's list, the Un-American Activities Committee's
list and other background that they have on file for many, many years in the past.
NECESSITY TO CONSIDER SOURCE AND SPONSOR OF PROPAGANDA
Mr. KENDALL. In other words, you have to consider not only the content of the propaganda material, but the source of it and its sponsors.
Colonel WAGASKY. Yes, sir. Mr. KENDALL. Is it not important to make this type of distinction? Colonel WAGASKY. Yes, sir. Mr. KENDALL. In other words, I happen to be 100 percent in favor of our current nuclear testing. But might it not be off base for one to conclude that everyone against it was a Communist or fellow traveler?
Colonel WAGASKY. The banging of the door made me miss a few words there, sir.
Mr. KENDALL. I say, I happen to be 100 percent in favor of our current nuclear atmospheric testings. But would I not be off base somewhat if I concluded that everyone who opposed it was a Communist or a fellow traveler ?
Colonel WAGASKY. You could be.
Mr. KENDALL. Do you think that? Do you think that everyone who opposes this nuclear testing or says “Ban the bomb," or such as that, is a Communist or fellow traveler?
Colonel WAGASKY. No, I do not agree to that. Just because a man opposes any issue, idea, or what have you, he is not necessarily put in a certain category.
Mr. KENDALL. I am just using this as an example, to go back to my original question—as to how you go about making a distinction to me seems to be somewhat important.
Colonel WAGASKY. First of all, we go through this channel, again, of the people that have had experience, many years of experience, in this reviewing of individuals and organizations. And they give us the answer. The minute we get the “go light” we go, we print it. There is no question about it. Now, if there is a doubt beyond this, we have a channel that goes through the Information Services to the Pentagon, for review of this particular article.
Mr. KENDALL. But you are not yourself engaged in making that type analysis ?
Colonel WAGASKY. In this publication of the Air Intelligence Training Bulletin, we do 99.9 percent of this analysis. We have a regular editorial policy by which we adhere to rigidly, to ascertain what we print and do not print-propriety, and that sort of thing.
Mr. KENDALL. Thank you very much.
Senator BARTLETT. May I just pursue one step further. As I understand it, you told Mr. Kendall that you do not believe that Americans who oppose nuclear tests in the atmosphere are necessarily Communists.
Colonel WAGASKY. No, sir.
Senator THURMOND. Well, in order for your answer to be clear, you mean—would you tell us whether or not you do-in other words, I am not sure the way the question was asked, whether the answer
Colonel WAGASKY. Just because somebody opposes nuclear testing or any other major issue does not put this individual in any category of any “ism” or idea.
Senator THURMOND. I just wanted to be sure.
Senator BARTLETT. You would not nominate these people as being necessarily anything but good Americans.
Colonel WAGASKY. That is right. Mr. KENDALL. My whole point was to clarify my question that you have to go further, and go into the background of the people and the source.
Colonel WAGASKY. Yes, sir; you have to go in the background, and the procedures and so forth.
Senator BARTLETT. I think it is well you brought that out. I feel exactly as you do, that these tests had to be conducted. But nevertheless we know that lots of Americans still are in opposition, and they are not Communists at all, as the colonel implied.
Senator THURMOND. Of course, Colonel, I think we all probably agree that disarming the United States is a key Communist propaganda objective. I think that is well known, is it not?
Colonel WAGASKY. Yes, sir.
Senator THURMOND. That does not necessarily mean that everybody who would favor that is a Communist. But at the same time that is a well-known objective of the Communists. And people who espouse that proposal and proposal after proposal which are Communist goals might be cause for looking into; is that right?
Colonel WAGASKY. Yes, sir; that is correct.
Senator THURMOND. All right. If there are no more questions, Colonel, I want to thank you for your appearance here, and for your splendid testimony, and the great contribution you made to these hearings.
Colonel WAGASKY. Thank you, sir. And I would like to also say that I deem it a sincere honor to be present.
Senator THURMOND. Our next witness is Lt. Col. Samuel Vaughan Wilson. Colonel Wilson is here, I believe.
Colonel, have a seat.
Senator TIIURMOND. Do you want to stand up and be sworn? The evidence you give in this hearing shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God.
TESTIMONY OF SAMUEL VAUGHAN WILSON, LIEUTENANT
COLONEL, U.S. ARMY Colonel WILSON. I do, sir.
Senator THURMOND. Mr. Kendall, you are the chief counsel. Go ahead if you wish to ask questions.
Mr. KENDALL. No, sir, I have no questions. I believe the colonel has a brief statement here.
WILSON STATEMENT Senator THURMOND. All right. Colonel, would you want to present your statement ?
Colonel Wilson. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Samuel Vaughan Wilson, lieutenant colonel, Infantry, U.S. Army.