Senator THURMOND. If ideological motivations are important to the extent that they are the bond of cooperation and control between Communists of all nationalities, then our policy's assumption that Yugoslavia is an independent Communist regime not acting in concert with the Sino-Soviet bloc would be highly dubious, would it not?

Mr. BALL. Well, I would say that the independence of Yugoslavia is a matter of historical fact. I mean it is demonstrated by what the policies of the Yugoslavian Government have been.

I suggested to you a moment ago that, as far as the personal views of Marshal Tito were concerned, I had no doubt that he was sympathetic with the long-range objectives of international communism.

But, as far as the policies of the Yugoslavia Government are concerned, they have been directed, by and large, toward the advancement of the Yugoslav national interest.

CONFLICT OF IDEOLOGIES IN THE COLD WAR

Senator THURMOND. The cold war is a struggle with many facets. Would you agree that among the most important facets of the cold war is the struggle for men's minds?

Mr. BALL. Certainly.

Senator THURMOND. There are a number of kinds of ideologies such as political ideologies, religious ideologies, and economic ideologies. Would you agree that ideologies play a major part in shaping the mental attitudes and outlooks of great numbers of people?

Mr. BALL. I certainly do.

Senator THURMOND. Now, Mr. Secretary, from reading the speeches which were submitted for review it is quite obvious that men are inclined to comment on ideological concepts. The Communist ideology, as fraudulent and illogical as it is, is relatively concisely outlined in the writing of Marx, Engels, and Lenin.

In free countries, particularly the United States, there is no prescribed ideology beyond certain fundamental principles set forth in our Constitution. No two Americans need have the same religious ideology, and, for that matter, it is not prescribed that they have a religious ideology at all. Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of Americans find a very fundamental conflict between their own ideology and that of the Communists.

Essentially, I believe that the opposition of Americans to communism stems primarily from our recognition of this fundamental conflict of ideologies, rather than from their recognition that our political and economic system provides more material goods than does the Communist political and economic system.

Do you agree?

Mr. BALL. Yes, but I would disagree with one thing you have said, Senator Thurmond, when you described the writing of Marx and Engels as concise.

I think anyone who has ever read "Das Kapital" would come to another conclusion.

But, in general, my own philosophy, as I have tried to articulate it here, which I think is the philosophy of the Department, is that we think that people are motivated by the positive conviction in something, in the belief in a Creator, in a set of ideals and in a set of ideas. We think the ideas of freedom and the ideas represented in the Bill 80752-62-pt. 6 -23

of Rights, stated in the American Constitution, and stated in the Declaration of Independence are the ideas which have a great appeal to mankind.

These ideas are, by their nature, mutually inconsistent with the ideas of communism. Without in any way diminishing our opposition to communism or in any way diminishing the steps that are taken to bring about a persuasion of people that this is a very fraudulent direction to take, the important thing is to give them something positive and something that they can have faith in. This is what we endeavor to do.

Senator THURMOND. What I said was that the Communist ideology, as fraudulent and illogical as it is, is relatively concisely outlined in the writings of Marx, Engels, and Lenin.

Now, Mr. Secretary, I realize that the discussion of the conflict between Communists and the free world in ideological terms by any American carries certain risks of offending either a fellow American or peoples of nations who are our allies or peoples in nations that are neutrals or peoples in countries that are neutralists.

Since Americans, for the most part, have no prescribed ideologies, it is not possible, or at least it is certainly improbable, that Americans can speak with one voice when commenting on ideological differences. Is this, by any chance, the reason why the State Department censors discouraged, by their censorship actions, discussions of the differences between communism and ourselves in the ideological realm? Mr. BALL. No.

In the first place, I think that Americans do have a central body of beliefs to which they subscribe, and I think that those beliefs are totally inconsistent with the Communist ideas.

The question as to what kind of discussion is appropriate or useful is a function, as I pointed out before, of many things.

It is a function of who is undertaking the discussion? Where it is being undertaken? To what audience? What is the context in history? And what are the particular national policies that are going forward at that time?

Senator THURMOND. We will take a 10-minute recess.

(At this point in the proceedings, a short recess was taken, after which the hearing was continued.)

Senator STENNIS. Gentlemen, if it is agreeable, I propose that we run on a little while longer and then take a recess.

The subcommittee will please come to order.

All right, Senator, will you proceed?

Senator THURMOND. Mr. Secretary, despite the risk involved in permitting our officials to discuss and depict the ideological conflict between ourselves and the Communists and contrasting these ideological differences, how can we possibly hope to win the battle for men's minds without some concentration on ideological motivations?

Mr. BALL. Well, I think we win the battle for men' minds in a thousand ways, Senator, and I do not think that they are won primarily by high military officers of the United States making speeches which may be distorted for the purposes of the Communist propaganda machine which is a major element in the battle for men's minds.

I would say that the way we win the battle for men's minds is to make men realize the importance and the virtues and the benefits of the ideas for which we stand in the West, and so on.

This does not mean that we should not pursue policies of making clear the fraudulent nature of international communism, but I think the great emphasis should be on the positive.

Senator THURMOND. Is it the position of our policy that we can win the battle for men's minds without picturing and contrasting in words, writing, or pictorial presentations the contrast of ideologies as between the Communists and ourselves?

Mr. BALL. I think it is useful under the right circumstances for the people who can do it most appropriately to carry on a constant campaign of education along that line, Senator.

STATE DEPARTMENT POSITION ON USE OF INVECTIVE TO DESCRIBE

COMMUNISM

Senator THURMOND. When you were before the committee previously, you made a reference in your prepared statement to "Communist tyranny." Yet, from a speech prepared for delivery on February 4, 1961, speech No. 142, a reference to "squalid and tyrannical Communist system" was deleted, and your explanation reads, in part:

The Department has not favored the use of invective in speeches by high Government or military officials since it is undignified and could be used to equate our Government's conduct with that of the Communists who regularly employ such devices in their propaganda.

Now, Mr. Secretary, is it our policy that in conducting the battle for men's minds, our officials in their public statements must limit their remarks to those which are dull and dignified for fear of engaging in what the State Department calls "invective?"

Mr. BALL. This speech was made, Senator Thurmond, right after the new administration had come into responsibility. At that time there was the hope that we might be able to reduce the level of ferocity of the exchanges that were going on between ourselves and the Soviet Union, and that possibly, if we could pursue, ourselves, policies and utterances which would be freed from invective, that the invective on the other side might stop and that we could carry on a discourse in a manner which would be much more persuasive in the battle for men's minds than simply name calling.

Now, I think that over a period of time the effort to improve the dialog has not been greatly successful, since the Communist spokesmen continue to indulge in a good deal of name calling, but one has to look at this change in the context of the time in which it was made. Senator THURMOND. Of course, the Communists had indulged in name calling prior to that, and they have done it since that time. Mr. BALL. That is right.

This was a hope of changing a prevailing situation.

Senator THURMOND. And it did not work, did it?

Mr. BALL. No, it did not work, but nobody knew whether it would work or not. It was something that was worth trying. There has been some improvement, I would say, in the invective content of the exchange. It is not as great as it was.

Senator THURMOND. Do you consider the adjective "tyrannical" accurately descriptive of the Communist system?

Mr. BALL. Certainly.

Senator THURMOND. Do you consider the Communists to be "ruthless" and "vicious?"

Mr. BALL. Yes, I think that they are certainly ruthless in the pursuit of their policies and that they are vicious.

Senator THURMOND. Mr. Secretary, it is clear that the State De partment does not approve of the use by our officials of the adjectives "tyrannical," "ruthless," or "vicious," in describing the Communists or the Communist system because they are considered undignified.

What sort of names could our officials use which would convey the same descriptions of the Communists to a lay audience as distinguished from a sophisticated Department audience and which synonyms are dignified and free of invective?

Mr. BALL. As you, yourself, pointed out, Senator, I had no difficulty with the word "tyrannical," in reference to the Communist system.

Senator THURMOND. But, yet, the censors have been removing that term, and "ruthless" and "vicious," so you do not approve of what the censors did, is that what you are saying?

Mr. BALL. No.

Senator THURMOND. Or do you think conditions have changed or just what is your reason?

Mr. BALL. No. I would say at the present time we would certainly not remove those words.

Senator THURMOND. You would not remove those words?

Mr. BALL. That does not mean that there may not come a time

Senator THURMOND. At the time that they were removed, do you approve of their removal, or do you feel they were a little overzealous?

Mr. BALL. I think that there was a serious effort being made, when the administration came in, to see if we could transform the level of the discourse between ourselves and the Communist world. The Communists were not inclined to cooperate in that.

But let me say, also, Senator Thurmond, that I see no particular virtue in the use of these words just for the sake of using them.

I think that, to the extent we win the battle for men's minds, we do it by persuasion and not by invective.

Senator THURMOND. Mr. Secretary, we all know, and you have admitted, that the aim of the Communists is to dominate and enslave the world, and if that is their aim, that certainly is a vicious enemy, is it not, and our people should be told about their goal and their vicious operations and their designs to take the world, should they not?

Mr. BALL. I think our people should be told. I think our people know very well. That does not mean that it should not be referred to, but, again, it is a question of how, when, by whom.

Senator THURMOND. Do you think it is untactful, then, to use the words "tyrannical," "vicious," or "ruthless?"

Mr. BALL. I do not think it is a question of tact. I think it is a question of whether it serves our national purpose at the time.

Senator THURMOND. Do you think it serves our national purpose for those terms to be used in describing the enemy whose goal is to dominate and enslave the world?

Mr. BALL. I find no objection to the use of those terms. I think there are appropriate times for all things. I think that they may be more useful at some times than others.

STATE DEPARTMENT POSITION ON REFERENCE TO COMMUNIST GOAL OF

WORLD DOMINATION

Senator THURMOND. Now, any number of times, our officials in the Defense Department have proposed to state the Communist goal of world domination or world conquest. And almost invariably it is deleted.

For example, if you will turn to speeches Nos. 141, 12—if you will write these down, I will give you a number of them—141, 12, 109, 125, 1, 16 and 17, it was deleted from those speeches, which were among the group on which the State Department was asked to explain the deletions.

Now, I realize that you have listed events occurring in our international relations of highly important consequence over periods that cover like a blanket the entire time for which we are examining the speech review process.

Such statements were deleted as far back as September 30, 1959, and as late as June 14, 1961, and this covers quite thoroughly the periods for which you were asked to explain the deletions in speeches.

Do you conceive that there is, or ever will be, a time when our foreign policy will permit speakers to state openly and candidly that the Communist goal has been, and is now, conquest and domination of the world, except when the official is speaking to this or some other committee inquiring why the Communists' goals cannot be stated?

Mr. BALL. I think that officials of our Government say this all the time. As far as officials of the State Department are concerned, we never attempt to conceal the objective of the international Communist conspiracy.

Senator THURMOND. Then why was this consistently deleted from speeches by the military officers?

Mr. BALL. I think it depends to some extent upon the way these things are stated, and certainly it is a function of the time in which they are stated.

Senator THURMOND. We will take up

Mr. BALL. I think, if you look at them individually, you can form a much better judgment.

Senator THURMOND. We will take up No. 141, if you wish to turn to that.

Mr. BALL. All right, I have it here.

Senator THURMOND. And then No. 12.

Would you just explain any particular reason for it being deleted there, or do you think they were overzealous there on those occasions? Mr. BALL. No. 141 was a speech that General White was making. Senator THURMOND. General White was the Chief of Staff of the Air Force.

Mr. BALL. He was Chief of Staff of the Air Force, yes.

Senator THURMOND. Well, he is a man of discretion, is he not?
Mr. BALL. Certainly.

Senator THURMOND. And he knows, or should have known, the national policy, should he not?