In the first part of the speech, the censor substituted "Sino-Soviet bloc" for "Communist world." Subsequently, in the same speech, the censor inserted a phrase containing the term "Communist bloc aggression."

Now, would you please explain why, in the first part of the speech, the speaker could not refer to the "Communist world," but was required to speak in terms of the "Sino-Soviet bloc," and, subsequently, in the same speech the censor inserted the phrase "the Communist bloc"?

Mr. BALL. This is in 95?

Senator THURMOND. In 95.

Mr. BALL. Yes.

Well, the reason for the deletion or change from "Communist world," I think, is perhaps oversubtle, but I think there is something to be said for it. There has been a tendency in the Department to want to get away from the conception that the Communist movement is worldwide. It is, in our view, centered in Communist Parties, which are spread around the world, but in many parts of the world it has no effectiveness and is very feeble.

This is simply a desire not to create the impression that communism is more successful than it is, because of the fact that we have not wanted to give this impression to countries which are attracted by success.

We do not want to build up the success of the Communist effort. But I think it is a highly subtle change, and perhaps overly subtle. Again, I would not have seen any particular objection to having left this the way it was.

Now, when we get down to the second point, the explanation that is given for substituting "jeopardized by the Communist bloc aggression" for "at stake in the world struggle that we call the cold war,' was simply, again, to put the onus on the Communist bloc and not to associate the cold war with military effort. Once military effort becomes involved, the cold war ceases to be a cold war and becomes a hot war.

But I find these particular changes are oversubtle. The present practice in the Department is not to change "communism" to the "Sino-Soviet bloc" or to make changes of this kind.

Senator THURMOND. The public generally would construe, if you said the "Communist world," to mean Russia, Red China, and their satellites, would it not?

Mr. BALL. Yes.

As I say, I think this is an oversubtle, overelaborate change. Senator THURMOND. If the term "Sino-Soviet bloc" in the definition used by the State Department for this term excludes Yugoslavia, does the term "Communist bloc" also exclude Yugoslavia?

Mr. BALL. "Communist bloc" would exclude Yugoslavia because the “bloc,” in the terminology that is normally employed in these things, implies a relationship which means that policy actually derives from Moscow.

Senator THURMOND. Either term, "Sino-Soviet bloc" or "Communist bloc," would exclude Yugoslavia?

Mr. BALL. That is right.

Senator THURMOND. From this, one would judge that the key word, semantically speaking, is "bloc," rather than such modifiers as "SinoSoviet," "Soviet" and "Communist."

Mr. BALL. That is correct.

Senator THURMOND. Is that correct?

Mr. BALL. That is correct.

Senator THURMOND. In commenting on the substitution of the term "Sino-Soviet bloc" for the term "Communist world" in speech No. 95, the State Department explains:

The reviewer deemed it more appropriate to refer to the Communist camp in terms directed at its leadership from the U.S.S.R. and Communist China rather than in terms which imply a worldwide Communist movement.

Now, Mr. Ball, of course, it is not the position of the State Department that there is no worldwide Communist movement, I am sure. Mr. BALL. The position of the State Department is that there is a Communist movement which finds its form in the relationships between the Communist parties in the individual countries around the world and the Communist apparatus in the Soviet Union.

But the whole point, which apparently represented a practice that was being followed at this time, was not to use such words as "world" in relation to communism in order not to attempt to build up the success of the Communist movement in the eyes of some of the people that might be tempted by it.

Now, as I say, I think this is oversubtle, and it is not the practice that we are following now.

Senator THURMOND. I want to be sure to clarify this. Is it the position of the State Department that there is no worldwide Communist movement?

Mr. BALL. Oh, no.

We recognize that there is a worldwide Communist movement. There is no question about that.

Senator THURMOND. You stated a few moments ago that when military action starts in the cold war, it becomes a hot war. Is, in fact, the military action in southeast Asia a hot war in your interpretation?

Mr. BALL. It becomes a hot war if it is translated in forms of a major conflict. There are obviously localized situations in which military actions go on without a major war developing.

Senator THURMOND. I presume even the State Department would agree that not all of the world is free. Yet the term "free world" is fairly commonly used by official State Department spokesmen. Mr. BALL. Yes.

Senator THURMOND. I presume that you, yourself, have used the term "free world"?

Mr. BALL. I have used it. I use it very often. But here we want to build up the impression of success.

Senator THURMOND. Similarly, when the term "Communist world" is used, the accepted connotation, at least in non-State Department, is that part of the world's peoples and territories which are dominated by Communist totalitarianism?

Mr. BALL. That is right.

And, as I say, Senator Thurmond, I have no quarrel with this expression.

I do think this was overelaborate. We are trying to stop this kind of overelaborate recommendation.

Senator THURMOND. Mr. Secretary, when you were before the committee previously, you used the expression "a world of Communist tyranny."

This comes very close to being inconsistent with the explanation given by the State Department in their censorship actions.

It appears that State Department has not invariably enforced this rule of semantics, for, if you will notice speech No. 156-that is in the "miscellaneous" category

Mr. BALL. Yes, I see it. Thank you.

Senator THURMOND (continuing). The censor permitted the phrase "world communism" to remain in the speech. It is fairly obvious that this was not an oversight, for the censor inserted a phrase immediately following the term "world communism." I believe you told us when you were here before that you had your statement to the committee cleared by the State Department in the person of Mr. Rusk, himself, did you not?

Mr. BALL. That is true, sir.

Senator THURMOND. Despite these rare exceptions, the State Department does appear to have made a very determined effort to prevent the use of the words "world" and "international" in describing communism.

They deleted these terms from speeches Nos. 111, 42, 41, 47, and 88, if you would like to turn to those

Mr. BALL. I will not take the time to find them here but I am sure that what you say is correct.

Senator THURMOND (continuing). Of those which were submitted to the State Department for their reasoning behind the censorship actions.

Do you think there is any merit in the statement of the State Department that:

The phrase "world communism" concedes too much since communism does not embrace the world. Use of the phrase gives to communism an aura of achievement and legitimacy.

Mr. BALL. Well, as I say, this was the reason behind it. I think the intention was a good one of not trying to build up the success of communism in the eyes of the world. I think it is pretty subtle and it is not the kind of change which we would make today.

Senator THURMOND. The term "world communism" and the term "international communism," as proposed to be used in these speeches which were censored, were contained in a context which I find in most instances made clear the exact meaning or connotation which the speaker meant to imply.

Does the State Department find in the context in which the term "world communism" is used, as for instance in speech No. 41, an ambiguity which would subject the term to the connotation which the State Department imputes to it; and, if so, would you please point out that ambiguity or those ambiguities to the committee?

Mr. BALL. Well, let me say with respect to the first of these, where the phrase "the Sino-Soviet bloc" has been substituted for "communism," and where we talk about the Sino-Soviet bloc openly dedicated to the ruthless destruction of freedom and liberty of all mankind, and which already has subjugated 15 freedom-loving nations on the fringes of the Iron and Bamboo Curtains, it is necessary to ask: How was this subjugation brought about? This was brought about by the threat or action of the Red armies.

Now, the point that is implied here is that communism, in and of itself, has rarely succeeded in bringing about the subjugation of na

tions, but that communism, backed up by the power centers of the Soviet Union and Red China, with the military might that they can mobilize, is able to do this on the fringes of the Bamboo and Iron Curtains.

But where there is no immediate access by the Red armies to those countries, there have been only a few isolated situations in which communism, as an ideological force, has been able to bring about these subjugations.

Now, this is a point which I think may be well worth making. Whether it justifies this change in this particular case is arguable, but I think, as a principle to be borne in mind, it is an important one; namely, that the success of the Communist movement in actually bringing about the subjugation of territories has been a military sucIt represents the mobilization, as I say, of the resources of these two great countries, and to put the responsibility on that for subjugating these countries around the fringe, seems to me to be simply in the interests of accuracy.

cess.

These countries did not pass behind the curtain because the people were won over to communism as an ideology. They passed behind the Iron Curtain because of a very ruthless use of military power or the threat of military power.

Now, the second change

Senator THURMOND. What about Yugoslavia?

Mr. BALL. No, as I say, I am not saying there are not exceptions. Cuba is an exception. The Red army did not take Cuba. Cuba was an example of where

Senator THURMOND. Subversion and infiltration worked in Yugoslavia, I am sure you will agree?

Mr. BALL. I will agree on that, yes. But, remember, Yugoslavia is, as I say, one of the few exceptions. Yugoslavia and Cuba are two cases where there has been an actual ideological takeover, but, other than that, this has not occurred. By and large, the generalization that one would make about the countries around the fringes is that it has been the power of military might or the threat of military might which has achieved takeover.

Now, this is a very important thought to be kept in mind in the West, it seems to me, because the fact is that the free world has been very successful in maintaining itself, with the exeception of very few instances.

Senator THURMOND. It has been very successful in maintaining itself since when, since World War II ended?

Mr. BALL. I should say in the last 10 years that the geographical acquisitions of communism in the form of countries which have passed completely under Communist domination are very few. I would think Cuba was the most conspicious exception.

Senator THURMOND. Since World War II, have there not been about 15 countries and 900 million people go behind the Iron Curtain! Mr. BALL. Yes, but that is precisely my point. They went behind because of the power or threat of the Red armies, Senator Thurmond. Senator THURMOND. In speech No. 35, the State Department reversed its terminology and substituted the word "Communist" for "Sino-Soviet bloc." In explanation, the State Department says:

Since the speaker is referring to an ideological condition, the reference should be to a "Communist" rather than to "Sino-Soviet bloc."

In speech No. 51, where the censors substituted the term "SinoSoviet" for "Communist," the State Department explained:

In speaking in geographical terms of the Communist threat, "Sino-Soviet" is more accurate than "Communist," which would include, for example, Yugoslavia. Will you please explain, first, why the context in speech No. 51 is considered to be in geographical terms while the context of the censored phrase in speech No. 35 is considered by the State Department to be in ideological terms? Speech No. 35 is in the fourth period and 51 is in the second period of the State Department's classification.

Mr. BALL. Well, in the first instance, we are talking about imperialism in the form of one limited aggression after another; in other words, of geographical taking over of countries, the expansion of the area of control of communism.

The point that I was making a moment ago is that, by and large, this has been due to the ability of Red China and the Soviet Union as the Communist powers to command forces. But those are the Red armies which are under its control, and this is, in effect, a geographical use of imperialism.

In the second case, what we are talking about is what people believe, and here we are talking about the dedication of the Communist movement itself.

Again, I think this is too subtle a change, but it is a logically defensible change.

Senator THURMOND. Now, let us look at this thing a little closer, by a comparison between these two passages. In speech No. 35, where the State Department censors decreed the use of the term "Communist," the passage, as censored, reads:

The Communists are dedicated to changing the face of the world and to replacing the democratic law by the dictatorship of the proletariat. In the course of advancing this program, they have promoted violence and class struggle as one of their choice instruments.

In speech No. 51, the speaker proposed to state:

The whole history of Communist imperialism is a history of one limited aggression after another and limited objectives; of advances in the face of weakness and retreats in the face of strength and determination; of moves carefully calculated to advance the Communist cause little by little without touching off a world holocaust which would profit them nothing.

Does the State Department not agree that both of these passages are articulations of Communist tactics and methods?

Mr. BALL. Yes, I think that is true, but I would say that in the first, that is, in speech 51, we are talking about imperialism and one limited aggression after another, and expansion of the area of control. We are describing a situation and talking about what the history has been; that this has been, in fact, the case.

Now, it has come about as a result of the mobilization of resources in these two countries and the employment of their armies either as a threat or through action.

In the second case, we are talking in ideological terms about what the Communists believe, about their purposes. Here it is clearly the purposes of the international Communist movement.

Senator THURMOND. Now, would you go back, please, to speech No. 51, and tell us just what is the geographical connotation in the passage in that speech?