"(a) Terminated the use of the revised edition of the questionnaire dated September 1961. (This is revised edition of the document which accompanied Mr. Kendall's letter of February 26, 1962.) "(b) Directed a thorough review of all instructional materials and handouts for personnel at Fort Jackson to insure that no objectionable material or materials harmful to military discipline and morale are being utilized. 6 “‘(c) Took_positive command action to insure that appropriate staff members review all materials prepared or furnished for use at Fort Jackson. 66 6 ‘(d) Directed all commanders to maintain strenuous surveillance to insure that objectionable materials are not printed, circulated, or utilized at this station. This surveillance includes materials being presented orally by instructors whether or not a written lesson plan is being followed to insure that appropriate matter only is presented. "In addition the commanding general of the 3d Army has determined that this type of instruction was conducted at Fort Jackson under the staff supervision of G-3. The commanding general, USCONARC, directed an inspector general's investigation of the instructional materials used in the basic administrative course at Fort Jackson. 66 ''Army commanders have been instructed to screen instructional material, both oral and written, to preclude the use of material which falls in the category of being objectionable or harmful to military discipline or morale. "A summary of the inspector general's investigation is attached.'" Now, for purposes of clarity, I will read an extract of the Inspector General's report concerning the investigation of these questionnaires : "Student handout material and instructional manuscripts used prior to March 9, 1962, contained many objectionable sentences, or sentences of questionable value. Much material contained connotations of passionate love, excessive use of alcohol, disregard for authority, brutality, violence, and undisciplined actions.'" I have never questioned the sense of purpose and mission of the commander in charge of this program at Fort Jackson, but I feel that he, along with many others, does not see the manner in which subversion is applied across the board against our military and civilian population by those who would disrupt, weaken, and undermine personal and national disciplines. It has been pointed out in numerous examples during these hearings that the need for close surveillance is one requiring experienced intelligence personnel who understand the subtle techniques of subversion of any type. The removal of this material at Fort Jackson is only a part answer to our problem. The key to this problem is the institution of a course in the services such as the document and publications analyst course organized in 1954 at Fort Holabird under the guidance of Dr. Sala who was a witness before this subcommittee. 7. On May 2, 1962, the Department of Defense provided an answer to a letter from the subcommittee dated February 16, 1962, concerning the training of Marine Corps security guards before assignment to U.S. embassies overseas. I wish to document this case because of General Shoup's comments that we need not educate our men in uniform on the nature of the Communist enemy because, as he indicated, the enemy might change from one day to the next. I find the course given Marine Corps guards on Communist methods and techniques of considerable interest. One of these courses includes the showing of the film, "The Hoaxters," AFIF 46. I know this film includes detailed discussion of Communist spies used against the United States. An outline of the course given to the Marine guards on specific techniques to effect personnel penetration includes case histories of: (1) Sex entrapment. (2) Blackmail for illegal activities. (3) Black market activities. (4) Coercion. (5) Provocation. (6) Use of drugs. (An outline of the course will be included in the record at this point.) GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, Mr. JAMES T. KENDALL, Chief Counsel, Preparedness Investigating Subcommittee, DEAR MR. KENDALL: Your letter of February 16, 1962, requests certain information concerning the Marine Corps Security Guard School. In response to your letter, the United States Marine Corps has informed me that: "As a matter of background, enclosure (1) is a pertinent extract from the Department of Defense, State Department Agreement for the conduct of the school. "Enclosure (2) is the number of Marines by class that have been trained by the school during the past year. There have been no other students. "As requested by Mr. J. T. Kendall's letter, enclosure (3) is an extract of training and instruction conducted by the school that has a bearing on or is related to subject training [Marine Corps training in cold war subjects at the Marine Security Guard School]. Also, included is an annotation of related programs that serve to enhance the formal instruction of the Marines who successfully complete the Marine Security Guard School. The Department of State has the exclusive responsibility for the organization and maintenance of lecture material and training aids for courses in which its representative participates. These subjects are identified in enclosure (3)." Enclosure (4) provides brief biographical sketches prepared by the Marine Corps of the Marine instructors who present the instruction as shown in enclosure (3). Enclosure 5 has been obtained from the Department of State. It consists of a lecture outline on Communist methods and techniques and a biography of the lecturer, prepared by the Office of Security, Department of State. Sincerely, CYRUS R. VANCE. COMMUNIST METHODS AND TECHNIQUES I. Introduction (50 minutes) A. 38 minute film: "The Hoaxters" (AFIF 46) 1. Techniques used by Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, and Stalin in B. Text of former President Eisenhower's statement, "There is * * *" II. Nature of Soviet intelligence activities (40 minutes) A. Active intelligence operations for two decades. 1. Revelations of Canadian Royal Commission Report. 3. Soviet intelligence activities in the United States. (b) Chambers case. (c) Atomic Spy Conspiracy. (d) Colonel Abel case. B. General Soviet techniques in mounting intelligence operations. 2. Surveillance. (a) Directed against all employees. (b) Types, uses, and objectives. 3. Use of indigenous employees. (a) Local employees within the post. (b) Domestics and others within residences. 4. Specific techniques to effect personnel penetration. (1) Sex entrapment (2) Blackmail for illegal activties (3) Blackmarket activities (4) Coercion (5) Provocation (6) Use of drugs III. Question and answer period (5 minutes). IV. Summary (5 minutes). A. Obvious indications that penetration attempts are not confined within B. Each U.S. employee considered desirable target. C. Personal requirements for U.S. employees. 1. Utmost awareness that each can be a target, regardless of rank or position. 2. Constant awareness of various techniques, however innocuous some may appear, to compromise personnel. 3. Utmost awareness of individual security responsibility during duty and off-duty hours. 4. Higher loyalty and intestinal fortitude involved to admit errors or pressures. 5. Text of Secretary Rusk's letter to chiefs of missions. STATEMENT OF FORMER PRESIDENT EISENHOWER, ON THE SUBJECT OF COMMUNISM "There is loose in the world a fanatic conspiracy, international communism, whose leaders have in two-score years seized control of all or parts of 17 countries, with nearly 1 billion people, over a third of the total population of the earth. The center of this conspiracy, Soviet Russia, has by the grimmest determination and harshest means raised itself to the second military and economic power in the world today. Its leaders never lose the opportunity to declare their determination to become the first with all possible speed." 8. The next item concerns correspondence from Department of Defense dated April 30, 1962, in reply to the subcommittee's letter of March 27, 1962, concerning the review of commercial films released to military theaters. During the hearings, several witnesses cited the need for improving quality control of commercial films released to the military by the Army and Air Force Motion Picture Service, as well as by the Navy Commercial Film Panel. The DOD reply to our query indicates that four films were reviewed for military use because of "unfavorable portrayal of military officer conduct, questionable moral tone, and because of the lack of a production code seal." The DOD letter further indicated "no special intelligence guidance is furnished the Army and Air Force Motion Picture Service to indicate methods of social, subversion, propaganda, and agitation which may find their way into commercial movies." It is not surprising to me to find that only four films; namely, "Moon Is Blue," "Baby Doll," "Prize of Gold," and "Man With the Golden Arm," were reviewed, when in fact a large number of commercial movies are more damaging than the four listed in degrading military prestige, discipline, and esprit de corps. The entire correspondence is appended along with an additional letter dated April 18, 1960, to Mr. Robert E. Quick, which points out some of the areas of intelligence screening which would be required to determine subversion in films traceable to Communist writers, producers, etc. It is of utmost importance that Department of Defense requires that the Communists have generated an all-out campaign to undermine the prestige, moral, and fighting spirit of military forces. The Army and Air Force Motion Picture Service apparently do not receive guidance, nor are they capable at this time to prevent socially and morally subversive films from reaching military audiences. The correspondence will be included in the record at this point. GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, Mr. JAMES T. KENDALL, Chief Counsel, Preparedness Investigating Subcommittee, Senate Office Building. DEAR MR. KENDALL: I am transmitting herewith responses furnished by the Department of the Army in reply to your letter of March 27, 1962, concerning the review of commercial films released to military theaters. Sincerely, CYRUS R. VANCE. REPLIES TO QUESTIONS IN MR. KENDALL'S LETTER OF MARCH 27, 1962 1. Question. Is the Army and Air Force Motion Picture Service currently screening commercial films before distribution to the services? If so, how is this done? Answer. All films are screened and evaluated by key representatives of the Army and Air Force Motion Picture Service (A&AFMPS) before procurement is considered. Generally, only those pictures are purchased that have sufficient entertainment value and carry the approval of the Production Code Authority, the motion picture industry's self-regulatory body. Exceptions to the Production Code Seal requirement are made only when there is no question as to acceptability of a picture from the viewpoint of moral tone, story content, or treatment. If a question exists, the A&AFMPS insists that the distributor submit the picture for approval by the Production Code Authority prior to considering purchase of the film. If a picture is considered to lack moral tone or lack appropriateness for showing in the U.S. Army and Air Force theaters, the A&AFMPS requests that a chaplain of either the Army or Air Force review the film and make recommendations to Chief, A&AFMPS. If the doubt is not resolved the Chief, A&AFMPS arranges a review of the film for representatives of Army and Air Force, Deputy Chiefs of Staff for Personnel, Chiefs of Information, and the Chiefs of Chaplains (Incl 1). The final approving authority is vested in the Deputy Chiefs of Staff for Personnel of the Army and Air Force. 2. Question. Is there a mission or functional statement which directs "quality control"? Answer. Paragraph 15b, AR 28-62/AFR 34-32, states, "No censorship is attempted other than of those pictures that portray life and activities of the Armed Forces of the United States." Additionally, the agreement (Incl 1) between the Chiefs of Chaplains of the Army and Air Force and the Chief, A&AFMPS constitutes instructions on how screening of commercial films is to be accomplished when a doubt exists as to moral tone or appropriateness for showing to military audiences. Commanders have been instructed to provide a wholesome recreational program for all members of their command and AR 28-62/AFR 34-32 provides that, "If the installation commander objects to the showing of any scheduled motion picture, substitute booking will be arranged provided adequate prior notice is transmitted to the appropriate office of the area A&AFMPS concerned. 3. Question. Has the Army and Air Force motion picture service ever rejected a commercial film for military use? If so, which film or films? Answer. The Army and Air Force Motion Picture has rejected the following films for military use: (1) "Moon Is Blue." (2) "Baby Doll." (3) "Prize of Gold." (4) "Man With the Golden Arm." These films were rejected because of unfavorable portrayal of military officer conduct, questionable moral tone, and because of the lack of a Production Code Seal. 4. Question. Is any intelligence guidance furnished the Army and Air Force motion picture service to indicate methods of social subversion, propaganda, and agitation which may find their way into commercial movies? Answer. There has been no special intelligence guidance furnished the A. & A.F.M.P.S. to indicate methods of social subversion, propaganda, and agitation which may find their way into commercial movies. However, the personnel of the A. & A.F.M.P.S. engaged in screening commercial films have a military security clearance of Top Secret or Secret. These clearances are obtained by a Background Investigation or a National Agency Check with written inquiries, respectively. A knowledge of military security regulations is required for both levels of clearance. 5. Question. Does the Navy obtain commercial movies through the Army and Air Force motion picture service? Answer. The Army and Air Force Motion Picture Service does not provide commercial films for use of the Department of the Navy. There are instances where motion picture service is provided to Navy personnel, such as the 3rd Marine Division on Okinawa, by the Army and Air Force Motion Picture Service. OCTOBER 20, 1960. AGREEMENT ON PREVIEW AID FOR ARMY AND AIR FORCE MOTION PICTURE SERVICE 1. By this instrument the Chief of U.S. Army Chaplains and the Chief of U.S. Air Force Chaplains agree to preview those motion pictures prior to booking which, in the considered opinion of the Army and Air Force Motion Picture Service, have a doubtful moral tone or lack appropriateness for showing in U.S. Army and Air Force motion picture theaters. 2. The method will conform to the following: (a) Army and Air Force Motion Picture Service will notify the Commandant of the U.S. Army Chaplain School that chaplains advice is desired in the preview of a particular film which appears to be immoral or in bad taste. (b) The Commandant, U.S. Army Chaplain School, will respond by previewing two-thirds of the films. He will notify the assigned Air Force chaplain when it is his turn to preview the other third. (c) If the doubt cannot thus be resolved and purchase or nonpurchase determined by the designated chaplain viewer in conjunction with Army and Air Force Motion Picture Service the Chief, Army and Air Force Motion Picture Service, will arrange for a preview in Washington by representatives of the Army and Air Force, Deputy Chiefs of Staffs for Personnel and Information, as well as the Chiefs of Chaplains, both services. (d) DCSPER, Army, and DCS/Personnel Air Force will have final approving authority if provisions of paragraph (c) above, are invoked. (e) As a courtesy, Bureau of Navy Personnel will be notified of the combined decision and booking action by Army and Air Force Motion Picture Service. Concur: FRANK A. TOBEY, Chaplain (Major General), USA, Chief of Chaplains. P. T. FINIGAN, Chaplain, Major General, USAF, Chief of Chaplains. (The Command Chaplain, USAF, Continental Air Command, is the designated reviewing officer for the Chief of Air Force Chaplains.) ROBERT E. QUICK, Chief, Army and Air Force Motion Picture Service. Mr. ROBERT E. QUICK, APRIL 18, 1960. Army and Air Force Motion Picture Service, DEAR MR. QUICK: Reference is made to your release on suitability classification of motion pictures. While I agree with your suggestion for "family control" over films released by the Army and Air Force Motion Picture Service, I feel that we don't recognize the more subtle techniques of subversion and propaganda emanated from Hollywood. You place the blame for the increasing problem on provocation in movies on the theory that the film industry is competing with TV to hold its audience. I don't believe this is a valid argument. Certainly some of the least subversive films have had a better boxoffice than some of the more subversive. Spectaculars in color will be an attraction regardless of their sensational, provocative, or even socially subversive nature. Furthermore, the idea of competition between the film and TV industry to which you allude is inaccurate because the same sexuality, immorality, violence, or social subversion may be found on the TV. The screen (film and TV) is, in my opinion, one of the key operating tools of communism against our Nation. Much entertainment on the screen includes doses of conditioning to lower standards of morals, disciplines, loyalties, and principles. The military audiences underestimate the effectiveness of Communist subversion and propaganda and permit wholesale manipulation of American public opinion. You have overlooked the fact that children, permitted by their parents, to attend "family" type movies are subjected usually to two previews forecasting "coming attractions." I have frequently seen previews with my children, which capsuled in 1 or 2 minutes the choicest violence, sexuality and "filth" contained in the full length show. There was no way I could have predicted what the |