Senator BARTLETT. Yes, even though the Communist Party itself in America was numerically much larger than it is now. Mr. BALL. That is right, sir. NUMERICAL RATIO OF DEFENSE-STATE SPEECHES Senator BARTLETT. Who makes more speeches, would you think, upon the subject we are considering here, the Department of Defense people, including military officers, or the Department of State officials? Mr. BALL. Well, of the speeches which come to our attention from the Department of Defense, and the speeches that are made within the State Department, the Department of Defense right now is running about 2 to 1 over us. I think that is accurate. Senator BARTLETT. They outnumber you. Mr. BALL. They do outnumber us. Of course, I am not saying this in any critical way. Senator BARTLETT. No, you are just making a factual statement. Mr. BALL. Yes. ANTI-WESTERN PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN IN SOVIET UNION Senator BARTLETT. Secretary Ball, I got to wondering this morning whether there is any evidence as to whether there is a comparable effort going on within the Soviet Union, whether officials of Government there are making speeches warning their people, educating their people, advising their people about what they would consider to be the dangers foisted upon Russia by the "imperialistic camp," as they would term it. Mr. BALL. I think what you have in the Soviet Union, of course, is a highly organized propaganda effort which goes on constantly to try to keep the Soviet people persuaded of the fact that Western capitalism is their dreadful enemy. This exists not only through speeches, but, of course, through the presentation of news articles in the press. They have no such thing as a free press, and no such thing as a free television or free radio. The whole apparatus of the state is directed toward this. We live in a different atmosphere in this country, fortunately. Senator BARTLETT. Yes. We know the Government officials are subject to public criticism. FUNCTION OF DEFENSE REPRESENTATIVE ASSIGNED TO STATE DEPARTMENT FOR SPEECH REVIEW Will the stationing of an officer from the Department of Defense, military or civilian, in the State Department in connection with this review function have anything to do at all with the source and content of speeches or will his capacity be strictly one of review and consultation? Mr. BALL. It is one of review and consultation. We don't attempt in any way, nor do we desire to try, to control who makes the speeches or what they should say as long as they don't contravene any policy. Senator BARTLETT. And won't in the future? Mr. BALL. That is right. 80752-62-pt. & -18 DELETION IN BROADHURST SPEECH, NO. 116 CALLED CASE OF OVERZEALOUSNESS Senator BARTLETT. Would you please turn, Mr. Secretary, to page 10 of the first period grouping. There a paragraph was deleted from a speech proposed to be made by General Broadhurst. Mr. BALL. What is the number of the speech, Senator? Senator BARTLETT. Would you agree with that deletion? Mr. BALL. Well, this again was at a highly sensitive time, because it was just before the time that President Eisenhower was going to meet Chairman Khrushchev, and it was the feeling that it was not very advisable for the Chief of Staff of SAC to make a speech which could be regarded as saber rattling by the U.S.S.R. propaganda machine. Senator BARTLETT. That is why I could not understand the deletion, because it was merely a quotation, in large part, of what Chairman Khrushchev had to say, using his own words for a public declaration in this country. There was nothing General Broadhurst he wasn't inventing any words that he put in the Chairman's mouth. Mr. BALL. I would say, Senator Bartlett, that this is certainly a marginal case of, perhaps, overzealousness on the part of the reviewer. Senator BARTLETT. I found that a bit hard to understand. Mr. BALL. Yes. CRITICISM OF DELETION OF PHRASE "THEY WOULD RATHER BE RED THAN DEAD" FROM DECKER SPEECH, NO. 4 Senator BARTLETT. Now, if you will turn to the second period on page 7 Mr. BALL. I only have them by speech numbers. Senator BARTLETT. Yes. I should mention the number of the speech. This is speech No. 4. Mr. BALL. Yes. Senator BARTLETT. I see. I understand that my allusion to the page numbers does not help you at all. You deleted this phrase from a speech to be made by General Decker, and I quote, "They would rather be Red than dead," and the explanation says that this deletion was made by Defense on the suggestion of the State Department. It was thought undesirable to popularize this slogan. I wonder why? Mr. BALL. I would ask the same question. I must say I don't think that this was necessary. Senator BARTLETT. All right. DEFENSE RESPONSIBLE FOR DELETIONS FROM WHITE SPEECH, NO. 141 On speech 141, by General White, the comment says about this speech: This speech was received by State 4 days after the President's inauguration and 1 day before the Soviet Union released the RB-47 fliers. In this context the reviewing officer questioned whether the speech should include particularly strong anti-Soviet language. The deletions in question were, however, not made by State. But the effect was the same, was it not? Defense did it because of State's suggestion. Mr. BALL. Well, Defense did it because of the consciousness of the desirability of getting the RB-47 fliers back. Senator BARTLETT. Their "arm wasn't twisted" on it? Mr. BALL. I beg your pardon? Senator BARTLETT. Their "arm wasn't twisted." Mr. BALL. No. So far as I can tell from our records, this wasn't suggested by State. This was a change that the Defense Department made on its own. DISCUSSION ON EXPLANATION FOR CHANGE IN DECKER SPEECH, NO. 100 Senator BARTLETT. Speech 100, by General Decker, and the comment says: It was deemed particularly inopportune to have a U.S. official make this charge at a time when a new administration was attempting to develop its avenues of communication with the Communist governments and, may I ask, including the Chinese Government? Mr. BALL. No. I should say with the Soviet Government at that time. I think there was no hope Senator BARTLETT. You would make that singular instead of plural? Mr. BALL. The word "government"? I would make it singular. Senator BARTLETT. All right. Mr. BALL. I think to the extent that it is plural it may relate to the Yugoslav Government, for example, and the Polish Government, but certainly not the Chinese. STATE DEPARTMENT REVIEW OF SPEECHES BY SERVICE SECRETARIES Senator BARTLETT. On speech 157 by Secretary Stahr, Secretary of the Army Stahr, the Defense Department reviews all speeches by the service Secretaries? Mr. BALL. Yes, all that the Defense Department sends over. As a matter of fact, when they impinge at all on the area of foreign policy they are being sent over today. Senator BARTLETT. Does that include speeches by Secretary McNamara ? REVIEW OF M'NAMARA AND RUSK SPEECHES Mr. BALL. Well, I will tell you exactly what happens with a speech by Secretary McNamara. When it deals with foreign policy today it would be read by Secretary Rusk just as, I think, Secretary McNamara would read any speech of Secretary Rusk dealing with military policy. Senator BARTLETT. Would they change each other's style? Mr. BALL. I think this is an area where neither would venture, sir. REVIEW OF KENNEDY SPEECHES Senator BARTLETT. How about President Kennedy's speeches; are they read? Mr. BALL. They are read by the Departments of the Government, and in many cases the speeches by the upper command of the Govern ment are read by the White House and, in many cases, by the President himself. ADVANTAGES OF SPEECH REVIEW Senator BARTLETT. No one is immune or, alternatively, no one is without this helpful guidance, is he? Mr. BALL. That is right. I may say that all of my speeches are read by my colleagues, and very often by the White House, and that I welcome it. I think Senator BARTLETT. I was going to ask you, does that provoke you, make you mad, or make you glad? Mr. BALL. I feel much more happy with the suggestions I get. It makes for a much more comfortable feeling, and very often they have the greatest utility. Senator BARTLETT. And not only that, but if the speech should backfire you don't have to take unilateral blame. Mr. BALL. That may have occurred to some of us. [Laughter.] EXPLANATION OF DELETION IN STAHR SPEECH, NO. 157 Senator BARTLETT. Now, this lead paragraph of Secretary Stahr's speech, it was said that : The Soviet Union has for years applied the major portion of its industrial capacity to the creation of military hardware, depriving its citizens not only of most of the comforts but many of the virtual necessities of life. And the comment said: While life in the Soviet Union is, of course, on nowhere near the high standard that we enjoy, the necessities of life as the Soviet people see them are available. If the newspaper articles of last week are correct as to the present price of butter and meat of the Soviet Union on account of the recent price increases made by Government edict, this statement and the comment would not be exactly accurate, would it? Mr. BALL. Well, I would say that the problem with a statement of this kind, Senator Bartlett, is that this is a statement which could be blown up all over the Soviet Union. They could say, "Here is the Secretary of the Army of the United States who is proclaiming that you people aren't getting the necessities of life. Of course, we are all eating well," and so on. I think that it does represent, or can be made to appear to be, a considerable overstatement. DISCUSSION ON ACCURACY OF DELETED STATEMENT IN THURMOND SPEECH, NO. 93 Senator BARTLETT. Will you please turn to speech 93 by Major General Thurmond. He undertook to say: Nevertheless they and he is referring to the Chinese Communists— are making military production headway. The comment says that this was early in the days of the new administration and that methods were being sought to make negotiations possible. My question is probably inappropriate as far as you are concerned, because it is not proper to put it to you, but properly should be put to the Department of Defense, to someone in the Department of Defense. And that is, what is the General's knowledge as to what is actually going on in China? But this had better not be discussed here anyway. But there is a statement in the following paragraph that was deleted where the general purported to say, was going to say, until a reviewer had at him, and now I quote: They and again the reference is to the Communist masters of China are sending large colonies of their people into foreign countries, there to set up Communist cells. This rather startled me because I didn't know there had been any large migration of Chinese from the boundaries of that country to other countries. Has there been? Mr. BALL. No. I wouldn't have said that they are sending large colonies of their people. They have, of course, sent a certain number of technicians into some of the countries, who obviously had some subversive intent, although even in those cases they have not been very active at it. Senator BARTLETT. But not for purposes of Mr. BALL. I don't know what the meaning of this reference would be about sending large colonies of their people. Actually this, I don't believe, is the case. Senator BARTLETT. You are as blank as I am on that. Mr. BALL. That is right. BARTLETT'S COMMENTS ON DELETED STATEMENT IN SPEECH NO. 151 Senator BARTLETT. I do not want to ask you a question about speech 151, Secretary Ball, but I do want to say that I think the reviewer was, or the reviewers were absolutely correct in deleting those referencs to a multiplicity of political parties in Iceland because many of our allies have a form of parliamentary government differing from ours, and we scarcely are in position, I should think, to say that this is not the proper way to conduct a democratic government. NO EXPLANATION GIVEN FOR DELETION IN SPEECH NO. 48 Speech 48, the third period. My question is only this: Were there three paragraphs quoted there which were deleted from the speech made by the Under Secretary of the Army? Mr. BALL. I understand only the central paragraph. Senator BARTLETT. Just the middle one? Mr. BALL. Yes, just the middle one. Senator BARTLETT. And that paragraph read in these words: We are looking the wrong way up a loaded gun. The man on the other end of the gun is a very unfriendly looking fellow and a fellow who has a look in his eye that we do not really understand. My example here does not give any reason or reasons for that deletion. Mr. BALL. No, and I think the reason there is none given is that there were no contemporary notes recorded as to why this was done, so that we could only surmise as to why this particular deletion was suggested. |