Mr. BALL. They didn't quote the precise words from the President's statement.

Senator THURMOND. Well, they made a direct blanket charge. Mr. BALL. Yes. But the point is that a blanket charge without the quotation of the words is not nearly as effective.

Senator THURMOND. Whether they put it in quotation marks or not, how would the people know the difference, or wouldn't they put it in quotation marks if it would serve their purpose? Wouldn't they lie, wouldn't they steal, and wouldn't they cheat? Wouldn't they follow any course that serves their purpose?

Mr. BALL. But when

Senator THURMOND. How are their people going to know the difference?

Mr. BALL. Because they are not talking to only their own people, but they are talking to people all over the world, and when there is a direct misquotation, then it can be challenged, and it is.

Senator THURMOND. The whole thing is, Mr. Secretary, if they wanted to distort anything or lie about it, they would do it, and if they can they would deceive their own people. They would deceive the neutralist nations, so-called neutralist, Red neutrals or whatever they are, or they will deceive other countries if they can, won't they? Mr. BALL. Senator Thurmond, don't you think their propaganda effort over the U-2 was helped by the fact that there was a U-2? To have something that they can quote in language gives a credibility.

Senator THURMOND. Mr. Khrushchev knew about the U-2 for 2 years before it ever happened and didn't open his mouth until he wanted to use it for his advantage.

Mr. BALL. Exactly. But it existed so he could use it to his advantage, and if there is language

Senator THURMOND. That doesn't mean we should have used the U-2 flights.

Mr. BALL. Certainly not.

Senator THURMOND. Therefore, we have got to follow a course that protects this country, a course of action and a course of words and not be guided by what they say or they said.

Mr. BALL. No, we have to follow a course of action which protects this country.

Now, if we have choice in a situation where it really doesn't make any difference fundamentally whether a high officer uses one phrasing or another phrasing, then he should select the phrasing that, in prudence, least serves the Soviet Union propaganda purpose.

Senator THURMOND. Now, Mr. Secretary, the Vice President is also pictured by the Communists, from time to time, as a warmonger.

On November 13, 1961, an article in Pravda referred to a speech made by the Vice President on Veterans Day in 1961 stated, and I quote:

U.S. Vice President Johnson has come out with a routine bellicose speech in a Texas town. As from a horn of plenty, there flowed from his lips hundreds of bombers carrying nuclear charges. From the ocean depths he conjured up atomic submarines belching skyward Polaris medium-range rockets. There was no place on earth where one could hide from Mr. Johnson. Regarding the Soviet Union, he indulged in cynical threats such as we have not heard for a long time from the lips of a U.S. official occupying such an exalted post. Nor will we be surprised if in the near future United States and West German

universities grant Johnson the honorary title of master of nuclear eloquence, that is today, oratory. All peace-loving people will condemn this inflammatory speech.

Now, I don't know whether the State Department reviewed the Vice President's speech or not. But will you tell us whether you think the speech could have been so worded as to avoid this type of characterization by the awesome Communist propaganda mill?

Mr. BALL. I am not concerned with the characterization. I think it is very significant they didn't quote this speech. The fact that they didn't quote the speech would suggest they couldn't find any useful quotes in the speech because quotes are far more effective than a characterization, and carry far more credibility.

Senator THURMOND. Well, they told what he said though.

Mr. BALL. They didn't say what he said. They went into a characterization.

Senator THURMOND. They said this, now listen to this:

Regarding the Soviet Union he indulged in cynical threats such as we have not heard for a long time from the lips of a U.S. official occupying such an exalted post.

Mr. BALL. That isn't

Senator THURMOND. Whether they put quotation marks around it or not, what difference does it make?

Mr. BALL. From the point of view of anyone listening to that, it has very little credibility because it is not in quotation marks. It is a characterization which they give.

Senator THURMOND. Now, Mr. Secretary, you have told us the State Department personnel themselves have their speeches cleared. The clearance procedure, however, quite obviously does not prevent the Communists from using the censored speeches as grist for its propaganda mill in anti-American themes.

For example, concerning a statement made by then U.S. Under Secretary of State Chester Bowles on November 10, 1961, in Tokyo, Radio Peiping broadcast to Asia the following, and I quote:

U.S. Under Secretary of State, Chester Bowles, at a press conference in Tokyo yesterday revealed that the United States would step up its intervention in South Vietnam to suppress the just struggle of the people there against the criminal rule of the U.S.-Ngo Dinh Diem clique, according to a Tokyo report. He said that the United States was "anxious to help" South Vietnam to stand against so-called Communist aggression.

Mr. Secretary, I haven't seen the text of Mr. Bowles' remarks in Tokyo, but I am quite sure that even without the help of the State Department censors, and certainly after submitting to censorship, Mr. Bowles would not characterize U.S. activity in South Vietnam as "intervention," nor imply that our actions there were, and I quoteto suppress the just struggle of the people there against the criminal rule of the U.S.-Ngo Dinh Diem clique.

"Is it the position of the State Department that they can diminish the effectiveness of the Communist propaganda campaign by reviewing and censoring public statements of our officials?

Mr. BALL. Certainly. I mean the significance there is that they didn't quote Mr. Bowles. They characterized it, and when they characterize it, it doesn't carry credibility. It is as simple as that. Senator THURMOND. Again I say they told what he said.

Mr. BALL. Well, they characterized what they said he said, but the fact was that if he had said something bellicose, something that they could have quoted to their advantage, they would have quoted it because it would have carried much more conviction and credibility. They didn't.

Senator THURMOND. Now, Mr. Secretary, even if we stopped all of our officials from saying anything, it would accomplish little diminution or change in theme of the Communist propaganda campaign.

For instance, the Communists use the very existence of the Peace Corps as a propaganda device. On November 21, 1961, Peiping broadcast to Asia, and I quote:

The United States is plotting to infiltrate into the British colonies of Sarawak and North Borneo with its "Peace Corps."

I am quite sure the State Department doesn't take the position that we should abolish the Peace Corps just to keep the Communists from using its existence and activities as grist for its propaganda mill, does it?

Mr. BALL. I think that what that discloses is the bankruptcy of the material available to the Communists for propaganda purposes. If they could have quoted statements by Sargent Shriver about the Peace Corps intentions which could have served their purposes, they would have done it, and they would have had a much more credible statement.

Senator THURMOND. Mr. Secretary, if they wanted to manufacture statements by Sargent Shriver wouldn't they have done it? That is what I am getting at.

Mr. BALL. No, there is very little evidence

Senator THURMOND. Don't they manufacture; don't they lie; don't they make any statement they want to to carry out their ends, that is what I am getting at?

Mr. BALL. No. You will find very little evidence of their inventing quotations from people. What they do is quote language, and this is a distinction of importance.

They invent characterizations, but not quotations, and there is a difference in the credibility.

Senator THURMOND. Well, they said that the Vice President said so-and-so or the President said so-and-so, and whether you put it in quotation marks or how, their people wouldn't know the difference. Mr. Secretary, if we were really going to take steps to cut off what you call the grist for the Communist propaganda mill we would have to take some pretty drastic steps.

For one thing, we would have to get rid of the Rand Corporation, for on November 20, 1961, Peiping radio broadcast a long tirade on the fact that the Rand Corp. is typical of U.S. war planners.

The broadcast charged, and I quote:

All basic information on which major U.S. policy on defense is based is provided by this Rand Corp.

Abolishment of the Rand Corp. would be a rather drastic step to take just in order to cut off the grist for the Communist propaganda mill, would it not, Mr. Secretary

Mr. BALL. Certainly. But changing a word or two in a speech would not be a drastic step to take, and is not a drastic step to take, and that is the point.

I mean, in one case there is a vital interest to the United States to preserve; but maintenance or use of one phrase as against another is not. So obviously we cannot stop the Communists from making propaganda. We can diminish the credibility of the material that is available for them, and we can do it without affecting any vital interests of the United States because fundamentally it does not make any real difference whether one phrase is used or another.

Senator THURMOND. Mr. Secretary, if we were going to be really effective in line with your reasoning, we would either have to cut off or try to keep secret all military appropriations by the Congress, for the Communist propaganda mill uses our appropriations also as grist.

As an example, Peiping broadcast to Asia on November 20, 1961, a tirade by Wu Yu-chang, a member of the Chinese Communist Party Central Committee, which included the following, and I quote:

Wu Yu-chang condemned U.S. imperialism for its intensified preparations for aggression against Cuba. Recently the Kennedy government appropriated 20 million U.S. dollars from its "special military program" as a "special fund" for military activities for aggression against Cuba. It had stockpiled large quantities of military supplies intended for attacking Cuba, including U.S. aircraft painted with the emblems of the Cuban counterrevolutionary organizations, ready to bomb Cuba. It has set up 20 camps for training mercenaries in the United States proper, and continued to recruit and organize mercenary troops in New York, Chicago, Miami, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and other U.S. cities, and it has established more than 15 bases to train mercenaries in the Central American countries of Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, and Salvador. At the same time it convened a series of military conferences in Central America and rigged up the "Joint Central American Intelligence Service" and the "Central American Joint Defense Council." U.S. imperialism also continued to organize the use of Cuban counterrevolutionaries to conduct sabotage within Cuba, and sent special agents to steal into Cuba for terrorist activities and sabotage.

Now, all of these examples were chosen at random from a few days' timespan and are but illustrative. Mr. Secretary, are you still of the opinion that the Communist propaganda effort could be or is impeded by strict censorship of the public statements of our officials? Mr. BALL. Well, in the first place, I have never advocated strict censorship.

The process which we follow is of a wholly different kind. Suggestions are made with regard to speeches which officials make, and one of the aspects with which we are concerned is Soviet propaganda, the Soviet propaganda mill.

The point is simply this, Senator Thurmond: When you are talking about the elimination of the Rand Corp. or talking about the elimination of the publication of appropriations, you are talking about something important. There are legitimate, useful, essential purposes to be served by the Rand Corp., or the publication of these things.

When you are talking about the suggested changes in a speech where you use one phrasing as against another, it is just ordinary good sense that, since there is no great purpose to be served by one rather than the other in the national interest, you use that phrase which gives the Communists the least munition for their propaganda apparatus, and this seems to me perfectly simple.

COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA FILMS

Senator THURMOND. Now, Mr. Secretary, let us take a little deeper look at the history of Communist propaganda activities and capa

bilities. I presume you know that the Communists are pioneers in propaganda techniques, particularly in the field of films.

The Nazis themselves studied techniques developed by the Communists, in order to be more effective with their deceitful propaganda.

The first, and probably most classic, step in the development of propaganda films was culminated in a picture produced by the Russians in 1923. It was a silent movie entitled "Potemkin," which was a masterpiece in the technique of film cutting and editing for purposes of achieving distortion.

The Nazis used this film in the late 1930's as a training aid technique of propaganda by film. Are you familiar with Communist propaganda films, Mr. Secretary?

Mr. BALL. I have seen some, yes.

Senator THURMOND. AS you told us when you were before the committee earlier, one of the primary themes of the anti-U.S. Communists propaganda is antimilitarism. I assure you they do not need, nor do they use, the statements of American officials to render effective their propaganda theme against Americans as militarists and brutal warmongers.

The names of some of the films which the Communists have produced on this antimilitarist theme are "38th Parallel," a North Korean film; "Resist American Aggression," produced in Peiping; "Battle for China," produced by Moscow films for the Chinese with English narration; "Germ Warfare Confession by U.S. Fliers," produced by Peiping; "Silvery Dust," produced by Moscow films; "Force Four,” an up-to-date version of "Silvery Dust," by Moscow films; "Meeting on the Elbe," by Moscow films; "Fall of Berlin," by Moscow films; "Meeting of the Gods," which is an East German propaganda film.

Mr. Secretary, are you familiar with these Communist antimilitary propaganda films, many of which have been circulated not only within the Sino-Soviet bloc but also in the free world; and how many of them have you seen?

Mr. BALL. I have seen one or two of them, Senator Thurmond.
Senator THURMOND. Which ones have you seen?

Mr. BALL. I don't recall, specifically. It is some time ago.

Senator THURMOND. What is that?

Mr. BALL. I say it is some time ago.

Senator THURMOND. Would you like me to repeat the names of them? Mr. BALL. We can get them from the record.

Senator THURMOND. You do not recall which ones you have seen? Mr. BALL. I don't recall which ones.

Senator THURMOND. You are certain you have seen some of these? Mr. BALL. Yes, I have seen some examples of Soviet propaganda, films.

Senator THURMOND. Mr. Secretary, scenes from several of these Communist propaganda films are included in Department of Defense film WA-8, which is entitled "Communist Propaganda," and is also titled "Yankee Go Home." Have you, by any chance, seen this film? Mr. BALL. I have not.

WHETHER COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA USE OF STATEMENTS JUSTIFIES

CENSORSHIP

Senator THURMOND. Mr. Secretary, do you still think that the potential use by the Communist propaganda machine of official U.S.