Senator THURMOND. Would you not agree, then, that the characterization of "all or nothing" is a poor choice of semantics and, in fact, might be misleading when so applied?

Mr. BALL. Well, I think that it describes what this language in the speech contemplates, namely; that you have it either black or white, that you either have totalitarian communism over the whole of the world or you have freedom.

I think it may, as I say, be a poor prediction as to the course of history.

BALL DENIES TAKING TACK DIFFERENT FROM STATE DEPARTMENT ANSWERS

Senator THURMOND. Mr. Secretary, you are giving answers today that are conflicting with the reports that were sent over by the State Department, and in your letter to the chairman of this committee dated March 29, 1962, you said:

The explanations herewith furnished to the committee have been prepared by specially assigned officers working under my personal direction.

Now, why do you today take a different tack from what the State Department, over your signature, took in furnishing these answers to these comments?

Mr. BALL. I am not taking a different tack, Senator Thurmond. These answers were based upon contemporary notes or talks with the people who did the reviewing. They are in explanation as to why the reviewer made the change.

I understand why the reviewer made the change. I said that I thought that this was a marginal case but that doesn't mean that I don't stand by this answer. This answer is an explanation as to why

the reviewer made the change.

We are in an area where obviously there is room for differences of opinion. We are in an area right now where, in our present state of relations with the rest of the world, if this appeared in a speech, I would feel fairly certain that the State Department would not comment on it.

At the same time, if you put yourself back into the atmosphere of May 19 of last year, just before a highly important conference was to be held to see whether a new administration approaching the situation from a fresh point of view could possibly find some areas in which there could be a diminution of tension, then I can perfectly well understand why the reviewer thought that this was something which could be used in a distorted way to create problems, and he preferred not to have it in the speech. I do not quarrel with his judgment either.

RESUMPTION OF DISCUSSION ON "EITHER/OR CONCEPT" EXPLANATION

Senator THURMOND. Now that we have discussed the semantics here, let us turn to the substantive objection of the State Department to the articulation by military speakers of the "either/or concept."

Incidentally, I am doing my best, as the country lawyer I am, to phrase my question in approximately complex terminology and grammar to approach the State Department level of sophistication.

You State Department people have such an obvious distaste for oversimplification. Reading the State Department's comments, with the help of a dictionary, of course, was an education in itself.

Before I forget it, would you please define for me the term "pejorative"?

Mr. BALL. "Pejorative" is a term that simply carries a quality of condemnation on the subject to which it is directed.

Let me say that I am from the Middle West of the United States myself, and I regard myself as a very simple soul. So I don't think that what has been suggested here suggests any particular sophistication. But we are dealing with matters which by their nature are very complex.

Senator THURMOND. Would you advise me just why this term is so precise in meaning as to preclude the use of a simple and more commonly used term?

Mr. BALL. "Pejorative" is a perfectly good English word, Senator Thurmond, and I think that is commonly enough used.

Senator THURMOND. Even if the Soviets develop new organizational and administrative structures, which might or might not take the form of managerial system, how could this serve as a basis for the prediction that the Soviets might have abandoned their aggressive drive for world domination?

Mr. BALL. I don't know that anyone suggested that it serve as the basis for such a prediction. I don't know that anyone is predicting it. All that I am suggesting to you, sir, is that it cannot be ruled out as a posibility; that we are in a season of very great changes in the world; that there are massive forces at work; that things are not likely to stay static; and that they may change for better or for worse. Senator THURMOND. Senator Bartlett has a few questions, and I am going to stop and yield to him. Senator Bartlett.

Senator BARTLETT. Thank you, Senator.

Senator STENNIS. While we are interrupted, I am going to have to ask you to excuse me for about 30 minutes or something like that. I hope you will proceed. I will get back as soon as I can.

DEFENSE REVIEW OF STATE DEPARTMENT SPEECHES CONCERNING MILITARY

Senator BARTLETT. Mr. Secretary, when the State Department official makes a speech in the United States relating to foreign policy and mentions the Military Establishment, is that speech reviewed by the Department of Defense?

Mr. BALL. Yes, it is, Senator Bartlett.

STYLISTIC CHANGES NOT TO BE MADE BY STATE REVIEWERS

Senator BARTLETT. In your statement this morning you implied, as I recall, that in another day, perhaps too many minor changes in style had been recommended by the reviewers, and that under the new order of things changes have been made in this.

Then you went on to say that only about 10 percent of the changes now being made are required under the authority of the State Department.

Are any of the remaining 90 percent which are in the category of suggestions still related to stylistic changes?

Mr. BALL. No. The instructions that have been given very explicitly state that stylistic changes are not to be made.

Senator BARTLETT. It is hard for any of us to avoid improving a speech that is before us, I imagine.

Mr. BALL. There is always a temptation.

DIFFERENCES IN VIEWS OF RUSSIA AND RED CHINA ON ACCOMPLISHING COMMUNIST GOAL

Senator BARTLETT. There was discussion this morning about the goals of the Communist bloc, and you agreed then, and this afternoon with Senator Thurmond, that the ultimate goal is the takeover of the world.

However, is it not true, or least does not our reading inform us, that the new two most powerful leaders of the Communist camp at this time have different ideas, as announced publicly, as to how that goal should be accomplished, with the Russian side of the camp saying that this can be done through peaceful means, that they will bury us economically, while the rulers of Red China are said to insist that the accomplishment of the goal shall be by war?

Mr. BALL. I think that states it accurately, Senator Bartlett.

DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM

Senator BARTLETT. There has been much said before the committee and elsewhere which would cause the person not skilled in the differentiations between political groups, and I include myself as one of those, to believe that socialism is the equivalent of communism, that there is no practical or substantial difference between the two.

I think it was the morning paper, I believe it was in the morning Post that I read about a meeting of socialist groups held in, as I recall, Scandinavia, in which some vigorous expressions were made against communism, in which the Socialists gathered from many nations, including Great Britain, had backed the United States in its foreign policy.

Would you care to comment upon the generality of likenesses or differences, in your opinion, between communism and socialism, and specifically about this meeting? Do you know anything about it?

Mr. BALL. Senator Bartlett, the Western European Socialist Parties are, for the most part, quite anti-Communist, and more violently antiCommunist in some countries than in others.

That element in communism which is disturbing to America, and which is the danger to America, is the element of the international conspiracy, the very fact that communism is aggressive in character as represented by the bloc, and that it works in collaboration with the Communist Parties throughout the world as conspiratorical organizations to bring about the overthrow of existing forms of society and the triumph of international communism.

Now, socialism as it exists in Western European countries, for example, is of quite a different order. It is not conspiratorial in any nature and it is not internatonal in the sense that it is aimed at the ultimate taking over of the world.

I know of no reason why the U.S. Government should fear the development of a Socialist government so long as that Socialist govern

ment is not directed toward this international objective. In fact, we have the phenomenon, which is one we have lived with now for a long time, where some of our closest allies have had Socialist governments and have worked with us in the common objective of restraining the aggressive forces of communism.

So that I think, to lump socialism and communism together as though they were one and the same thing without making these very clear distinctions, would be a very serious mistake.

EXPLANATION OF FABIAN SOCIALISM

Senator BARTLETT. What, Mr. Secretary, is Fabian socialism? Mr. BALL. Fabian socialism relates to the Fabian Society which was organized in the United Kingdom in the middle eighties of the last century by a number of intellectuals of whom, I think, the most outstanding at that time were the Webbs-Beatrice and Sidney Webb-who were economists.

It numbered among its members such British intellectuals as George Bernard Shaw. Many of the members of the British Labor Party have been Fabian Socialists. The so-called Bloomsbury set-the intellectual set—in London, was very heavily characterized by adherence to the Fabian Society and Fabian socialism.

A number of the present members of the British Labor Party would regard themselves as Fabian Socialists.

This is not a socialism which contemplates the overthrow of states by force or violence. It was primarily directed at the United Kingdom itself and contemplates the bringing about of a Socialist state in the United Kingdom by legitimate legislative means-perfectly peaceful kind of developments. As I say, you have had such people as, for example, Clement Atlee or, to some extent I would suspect, Mr. Gaitskill, who is the present leader of the British Labor Party, who would regard themselves as Fabian Socialists.

Senator BARTLETT. Are the goals, the present day goals, of the Fabian Socialists comparable to those of the Communists?

Mr. BALL. No, not in any sense at all. What the Socialists have advocated is an extension of the ideas of concept of government ownership of certain of the key elements of production.

But even this has tended to be eroded away by time, so that I think you would find that in what is left of Fabian Socialist circles in England today, there is a good deal of disillusionment with the idea of Government ownership as a solution for anything.

But the significant point so far as American interests are concerned, is that this has never been an aggressive movement. It has never been an international conspiracy. It has been a movement which has grown up within England looking toward the peaceful change of the social and economic organization of that country, and it is nothing that should cause us any concern whatever.

TRIUMPH OF THE IDEALS OF LIBERTY

Senator BARTLETT. Now, you said this morning, as I recall and, of course, we are all glad to have you say it, that our side will triumph in the long run,

Would you mean by that that history is on our side, and freedom and liberty, and the ideals that we embrace and have, even those that we still search for, are inevitably destined to conquer even if we make mistakes or don't do these things that we ought to? Are we going to win just because we are we?

Mr. BALL. Senator Bartlett, I am perfectly persuaded that history is on our side. I am perfectly persuaded with the vitality and the ultimate triumph of the ideals of liberty. But history is on our side only if we make it so, if we take these trends and conduct ourselves in a manner which gives impetus to them rather than which blocks or distorts them. I think that I am not enough of a historical determinist to believe that one can sit idly by and that history will do mankind's work for him.

I think mankind has to seize this opportunity, and that the policies which we, for example, in the United States must follow, must be policies which will encourage the trends which will bring about the triumph of the ideals in which we believe. I have a very deep faith in the vitality and ultimate supremacy of those ideas.

EVOLUTION OF SPEECH REVIEW

Senator BARTLETT. How long has this review process been going on? Mr. BALL. I think it was started by President Truman, so I recall, about 1950. Originally there was some speech review set up, I believe, under President Roosevelt during the war.

It was carried on by President Truman in order to avoid a multitude of voices within the administration which would weaken our posture in the eyes of the world, and it has been conducted ever since in one form or another.

Senator BARTLETT. Well, inferentially then, in 1935 a military officer could have made a speech on any subject of his own choosing without any guidance from any source.

Mr. BALL. Subject, I would suppose, to the discipline of the Military Establishment itself. But I think in 1935 there were no arrangements for the State Department to express any views on statements which a military officer might utter.

Senator BARTLETT. The same would be true with a State Department official or official from any other agency of Government. Mr. BALL. That is my understanding, Senator Bartlett.

NUMBER OF SPEECHES MADE PRIOR TO SPEECH REVIEW

Senator BARTLETT. What is your understanding as to the number of speeches made in those days?

Mr. BALL. I would suppose, Senator

Senator BARTLETT. Relating to policy considerations.

Mr. BALL. I would suppose they were very much less than now, although I have no statistics. I would be morally certain that they would be very substantially less than the number now because the major preoccupations of America were different then and we weren't faced in the brutal way that we are faced today with this continued consciousness of a threat from the Soviet bloc, so that speeches weren't addressed to that problem.