Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

b. The administrative support which this command rendered for the above seminars consisted in general of the following:

(1) Printing facilities at this headquarters were utilized to produce the program prepared for the seminars conducted in Washington, Baltimore, and Norfolk (Tab H), and a pamphlet consisting of ten articles on the subject of these seminars which were reprinted from the official magazine of the Reserve Officers Association (Tab H).

(2) Obtained pamphlets on subjects apropos to the seminars from the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Un-American Activities and from the U.S. Armed Forces Institute. These publications were distributed to as many of the conferees as the available quantity would permit. The following is a list of pamphlets obtained:

(a) From the Un-American Activities Committee:

1. The Ideology of Freedom vs. the Ideology of Communism, dated 5 June 1958.

2. Statement by J. Edgar Hoover, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 26 January 1960, Document No. 80.

3. Control of the Arts in the Communist Empire, dated 3 June 1959.

4. International Communism (The Present Posture of the Free World), dated 21 October 1957.

5. The Kremlin's Espionage and Terror Organizations, Testimony of Petr S. Deriabin, Former Officer of the USSR's Committee of State Security (KGB), released 17 March 1959.

6. Testimony of Captain Nikolai Fedorovich Artamonov (Former Soviet Naval Officer), dated 14 September 1960.

7. Communist Persecution of Churches in Red China and Northern Korea, dated 26 March 1959.

8. The House Committee on Un-American Activities, House Document No. 118, dated July 1958.

9. The Crimes of Khrushchev, Part 6, dated 17 December 1959. (NOTE. The degree of completeness of the above list is not known. All pamphlets were not available for all of the seminars. The available quantity of each pamphlet varied.)

(b) From U.S. Armed Forces Institute, Madison, Wis.: Pamphlets in the Democracy versus Communism Series, titled as follows: Nr 1, Democracy Faces Communism; Nr 2, What is Communism?; Nr 4, How Communism Controls Peoples' Ideas; Nr 5, How The Communist Party Operates; Nr 6, How Communists Gain and Keep Power; Nr 7, Communist Party Rule of Soviet Russia; Nr 8, How Communism Controls Peoples' Economic Life; Nr 9, How Workers and Farmers Fare Under Communism; Nr 10, Communist Conquest and Colonization. (3) Through use of data processing equipment and addressing machine, prepared seminar announcements of subject, time, etc., for mailing to U.S. Army Reserve officers in the local area.

(4) Provided for the travel of one speaker (Mr. Frank R. Barnett) as follows:

(a) From Chicago to Richmond and from Norfolk to Chicago.

(b) From New York City and return for seminars conducted at Louisville, Philadelphia and Columbus.

(5) In some instances, USAR Advisor personnel assisted the seminar director in the preparations for the seminar.

89. Q. Has the local command supported "Cold War" or "Strategy" seminars in the local civilian communities? (Details)

A. Yes. The following seminars, the same in nature as those listed in the preceding answer (para 88a) were supported in the same manner:

a. Fourth Dimensional Warfare Seminar, Louisville, Ky., 19 November 1960. Held in Bigelow Hall, University of Louisville.

b. Seminar in Fourth Dimensional Warfare, Columbus, Ohio, 25 February 1961. Held in Athletic Club, Columbus, Ohio.

c. 4th Dimensional Warfare Seminar, Pittsburgh, Pa., 15 April 1961. Held at the Mellon Institute, Pittsburgh, Pa.

90. Q. Has any adverse publicity been created locally as a result of such offpost seminars dealing with communism?

A. No adverse publicity concerning these seminars has come to the attention of this headquarters with the exception of that which appeared in the national press as a result of the Pittsburgh seminar.

91. Q. Has favorable publicity been generated as a result of military-civilian off-post seminars of this type?

A. In most instances, these seminars were well-reported in the local press. 92. Q. What are examples of favorable reaction?

A. See attached press clippings. (Tab H)

93. Q. Have any active duty, reserve or guard officers been transferred, admonished, "muzzled," or influenced in any other way, to become ineffective in their effort to expose the menace of communism?

A. No evidence is available to show that any Active Army or Reserve Component officer has been transferred, admonished, "muzzled,' or influenced in any other way, to become ineffective in any effort to expose the menace of communism.

94. Q. What are the details of each individual case?

A. N/A.

95. Q. Is there sufficient time in training or operating schedules of military staffs and units for periodic briefings and education on the "menace of communism?"

A. Yes. Current training time block is considered adequate.

96. Q. If not, what is needed to provide time or supplement current briefings of this type?

A. N/A.

97. Q. Is personnel capable of providing such anti-Communist briefings? A. Yes, within individual capabilities.

98. Q. To what extent do key military officers, knowledgeable in the area of communism become ineffective because of "additional duty" assignments, such as "welfare" programs (United Fund Drive, etc.); escort officers for visiting dignitaries; court-martials; inspections and other essential military housekeeping chores?

A. There are no known cases where such officers have become ineffective. 99. Q. How could the preoccupation (having too many other things to do) be solved to generate expert, hard-hitting, morale building troop information lectures on the seriousness of the threat of communism to our freedom?

A. No evidence is available that instructors have been hampered, through "preoccupation," from giving expert, hard-hitting, morale-building troop information lectures on the seriousness of the threat of communism to our freedom. 100. Q. Are there any special recommendations of military personnel, who are familiar with the methods of Communist subversion and propaganda, as to how the man in uniform could best be apprised of the manner in which the Communists attempt to erode basic American beliefs and values, personal responsibility, selfless dedication to the military team and faith in freedom?

A. No such recommendations have been received.

101. Q. How are speeches to be made in public cleared by the local command? A. Manuscripts prepared by individuals are reviewed by the Information Officer and corrected, if necessary, to conform to Department of Defense and Department of the Army policy guidance.

102. Q. Are speeches reviewed by intelligence (ONE, OSE, G2) for possible adverse reaction?

A. No.

103. Q. To whom is off-base speech clearance delegated by commander?

A. To Commanders of Corps and Class I installations and activities within the provisions of AR 360-5.

104. Q. What criteria is used to select those proposed speeches forwarded to DOD for review?

A. When manuscripts appear to contain national defense policy implications not contained in materials formally released by higher authority.

105. Q. What specific guidance material is used by clearance officer in review of off-base speeches cleared locally? (copies of documents.)

A. AR 360-5; DA Pam 355-201-1; Memo from Secretary of Defense, 5 October 1961; Command Comment; DA Speechmaker and Poster Series; Comments by Deputy Secretary of Defense; presentation by Secretary of the Army, and speeches formally disseminated by DOD and DA. (Tab H.)

106. Q. What is base policy and practice with regard to handling request from local organizations for military speakers from base?

A. Requests from veterans' organizations, civic service clubs, educational institutions and other prominent organizations are honored by the Information

Officer who selects an officer from this headquarters or requests one of appropriate rank from a subordinate headquarters. Requests from organizations which appear questionable are referred to G2, this headquarters, or at the subordinate headquarters concerned for evaluation. Most requests leave choice of subject to the speaker who uses either a presentation on the Second U.S. Army, one of the DA-prepared speeches or a travelogue type of presentation on his personal experiences in an Army assignment.

107. Q. Are organizations requesting military speakers screened by intelligence unit on base?

A. Yes, if there is any question about the nature of the requesting organization, or if the organization is unknown.

108. Q. Does local authority consider communism a "controversial" or "politically partisan" subject for speeches by military personnel?

A. Usually communism is considered as the subject of an address to the general public to be outside the sphere of local authority, but routine mention of communism, as it appears in speeches prepared and cleared by higher headquarters, is not discouraged.

109. Q. What is local commander's interpretation of term "within the cognizance of the Department of Defense" as used in DOD Policy Directive on Public Information?

A. That national policy requires the existing military establishment; that the Army has its proper role within the military establishment and that the public is entitled to know, within security limitations, how the Army is equipped, organized, trained and deployed in the performance of its mission. In this context, Commanders stress their organization, mission, responsibilities, training and operations in relation to the Army and its share in national defense.

4. Concerning the film, "Communist Target-Youth," the subcommittee was told in February that distribution of this film has been effected. In subsequent inquiries, it was determined that the distribution of this film was being conducted on a spasmodic and fragmentary basis. On May 8, 1962, the Department of Defense provided a summary of the distribution which showed that the film had only been distributed in the Army. The Air Force had ordered 475 copies and that the use of this film would occur in commanders' calls in all CONUS bases during the month of May 1962. The Marine Corps has not accepted the film, "Communist Target-Youth." The Navy is currently in the process of distributing the film to libraries. My point in mentioning this is that in September 1961 "The Challenge of Ideas," a soft-on-communism type of film, received command support for mandatory showing in all services. I find it disconcerting to have this hard-hitting film, "Communist Target-Youth," received no indorsement nor is its showing apparently mandatory throughout the services.

An additional point about the film, "Communist Target-Youth," is that it was originally numbered AFIF 116 and the Department of Defense correspondence dated May 8 refers to this film under No. AFIF 110.

(Put summary of Film Distribution dated May 8, 1962, in record at this point.) GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, Washington, D.C., May 8, 1962.

JAMES T. KENDALL, Esq.,
Chief Counsel, Preparedness Investigating Subcommittee,
Senate Office Building.

DEAR MR. KENDALL: I am transmitting herewith material in response to your letter of April 18, 1962, concerning the procurement and distribution of the film, "Communist Target-Youth." This material was compiled by the Directorate for Armed Forces Information and Education, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower), on the basis of reports received from the four services.

Sincerely,

CYRUS R. VANCE.

PROCUREMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF AFIF 110, "COMMUNIST TARGET: YOUTH"

ARMY

Total number of 16-millimeter prints distributed to Army film and equipment exchanges.

125

An additional 15 prints were distributed to nonreporting activities, such as Armed Forces Radio and TV Service, DAFIE, Canadian Army, British Army, NATO__

15

140

Total Army prints

Total showings from February 2, date prints in Army film and equipment exchanges, through April 23__

(Showings for period February 2-March 31, 1962 (1,219), are actual. For period April 1-23 (600) are estimated, based upon the prior utilization and related experience factors.)

1, 819

Distribution pattern used for the 125 prints to Army film and equipment exchanges:

[blocks in formation]

The Air Force has ordered 475 copies of the motion picture AFIF 110, "Communist Target: Youth." The prints will be distributed for use in Commander's Call programs in all major CONUS bases during the month of May 1962; and at all oversea bases and isolated CONUS units during the month of August.

MARINE CORPS

The film, "Communist Target: Youth," was not accepted for Marine Corps distribution and use.

NAVY

A total of 146 prints are in the process of being distributed to film libraries. Usage figures are not available inasmuch as the prints were not yet in use in April of 1962.

5. The instructor's folder issued by the U.S. Army Intelligence School on "Countersubversive Activities" includes one of the most clear-minded statements on command responsibility regarding subversive material disseminated on military installations. It places responsibility not only on the commanders under AR 381-135, but also indicates that all military personnel, especially intelligence personnel, have the responsibility to act on this problem area in the event that command action is assigned to G-2.

Two paragraphs of this instructor's manual which I have marked will be printed at this point in the record.

EXCERPTS FROM INSTRUCTORS' MANUAL IN COURSE ON "COUNTERSUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES," U.S. ARMY INTELLIGENCE SCHOOL

"AR 318-135 defines commercial publications as 'all nongovernmental published media of information, including books, magazines, periodicals, posters, handbills, newspapers, films, slides, recordings or other similar devices.' Thus, installation facilities that might be involved in disseminating these might be the PX, the post library, the post theater, the NCO club, the service club, the hobby shop, the snackbars and the dayrooms. Any facility operated with the sanction and the approval of the installation commander would come under the scope of this A.R.

"The commander is required to take ‘affirmative and appropriate steps to prohibit such dissemination.' Thus, this is another example of the responsibility of command. It is not your responsibility, although you may be delegated by the commander or someone acting for him to look out for subversive publications, to report their existence on the post, and to check to see whether they have been put out by officially designated subversive groups in furtherance of their aims or if, in your opinion, they are calculated to undermine the loyalty or morale of troops and thus interfere with their combat readiness."

6. Of particular concern during these hearings has been the lack of intelligence surveillance over commercial or official publications, films, tapes, recordings or other materials used or distributed on military installations. Some people prefer to call this "quality control," but, in my mind, it actually means that the commander uses intelligence resources to insure that no questionable official or unofficial materials are disseminated or used by military personnel. There have been innumerable examples of questionable films, publications, etc., used by the military services. One of the most interesting examples of the "lack of quality control" was the use of salacious and morally objectionable official student handout material used in the basic Army administration course at Fort Jackson, S.C. This material came to my attention through a South Carolina woman whose son was attending the course. Her son reported that the material was, in his opinion, subversive and degrading to military etiquette and discipline. The Department of Defense replied to the subcommittee's inquiry concerning the use of this questionnaire at Fort Jackson.

(Pertinent parts of the Department of Defense reply, which I have designated, will be printed in the record at this point.)

EXCERPTS FROM DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE REPLY TO SUBCOMMITTEE ON MATERIAL USED IN BASIC ARMY ADMINISTRATION COURSE AT FORT JACKSON, S.C. ""The commanding general, Fort Jackson, has taken the following action as of March 9, 1962, with reference to instructional materials utilized at Fort Jackson:

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »