Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

If I knew what Members of Congress were studying this problem I would certainly send a copy of this letter to them. I commend any group or individual really trying to come up with a solution to this grave condition, which, at present, is certainly a greater internal threat to the American people than is communism.

I am grateful that your office is sensitive to the dangers lurking in the present situation. Naturally no loyal American would suggest that any group in our country, regardless of how reactionary and misguided, be silenced, but I would trust that any semblance of official or governmental approval of such extremism would be withheld.

Thank you for your dedication to your position of responsibility in our Nation and to the best interests of the American people. Yours very truly.

ELAINE M. SAFSTROM.

AUGUST 1, 1961. Mrs. ELAINE M. SAFSTROM, Glenview, III.

DEAR MRS. SAFSTROM: The Secretary of Defense has asked that we reply to your letter of July 19, and thank you for your expression of confidence in policies of the Department with respect to certain limitations on the activities of military personnel in indoctrination of the public.

Your interest in this matter is appreciated, and your comments have been forwarded to responsible authorities of the Department. Sincerely,

JOHN E. CARLAND, Deputy Director, Special Activities.

FRANKLIN SQUARE, N.Y., Sunday, June 18, 1961. Hon. ROBERT MCNAMARA, Secretary of Defense, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: I read with dismay the article in today's New York Times indicating the growing right-wing political agitation of a number of high-ranked American military commanders. This represents a threat to basic American values as the power of the military increases it is more urgent than ever that military leaders understand the principles of American society which keeps the military subordinate to civilian control and which abhors vigilante politicking.

It is important that future officers in the military academies learn the basic American political doctrines and not be brainwashed by nit-wit semi-fascist commanders.

If right-wing fanaticism in the military is permitted to grow the strength of our Nation will be undermined. I hope that you and other members of the Cabinet will give this matter the serious attention it deserves. Thank you. Sincerely yours,

ARTHUR G. WIRTH.

JUNE 23, 1961. Mr. ARTHUR G. WIRTH, Franklin Square, New York.

DEAR MR. WIRTH: The Secretary of Defense has asked that we thank you for your letter of June 18, expressing your views regarding reported political activities of military commanders.

You may be assured that authorities of the Department of Defense are aware of the importance of civilian control of the Department and of the services, and the

necessity for all officials of the Department to confine their public discussions to Defense matters. Appropriate steps have been taken to insure that these principles are observed.

In this connection your attention is invited to the fourth principle of public information policy as announced in Department of Defense Directive 5230.13, a copy of which is enclosed. Your interest in these important matters is appreciated. Sincerely,

JOHN E. CARLAND, Assistant Director, Special Activities.

PHILADELPHIA, PA., June 18, 1961. Hon. ROBERT S. MCNAMARA, Secretary of Defense, Washington.

DEAR MR. SECRETARY: I have taken active interest in public affairs and public service for 20 years. I served as an enlisted man in the U.S. Army Air Forces in World War II.

The article on the machinations of the rightwing officers in today's New York Times is the most alarming piece of news I have ever read.

The threat of military juntas is usually associated with countries which lack a democratic tradition. The United States will not be taken over tomorrow by a Battista, a Trujillo, or a General Chang. But even the constitutional government of the French Republic was overthrown by an officers' revolt and we have just seen its shocking Algiers aftermath. It can happen here.

I am an ardent Democrat but I feel that General Eisenhower set a good example of proper conduct to senior military officers in the U.S. services. He had never even voted before 1952 and in his farewell speech as President he warned against the increasing domination by the Defense Establishment.

I am glad to read that this situation is causing you concern. Do not be deterred by the screams of professional superpatriots and the attacks of Fascists who masquerade as anti-Communists. This menace must be stamped out immediately. Yours very truly,

JOHN MAASS.

JUNE 27, 1961. Mr. JOHN MAASS, Philadelphia, Pa.

DEAR MR. MAASS: The Secretary of Defense has asked that we thank you for your recent letter, expressing your views regarding reported political activities of military commanders.

You may be assured that authorities of the Department of Defense are aware of the importance of civilian control of the Department and of the services. Appropriate steps have been taken to insure that these principles are observed.

In this connection your attention is invited to the fourth principle of public information policy as announced in Department of Defense Directive 5230.13, a copy of which is enclosed. Your interest in these important matters is appreciated. Sincerely,

JOHN E. CARLAND, Deputy Director, Special Activities.

JUNE 9, 1961. Hon. ROBERT MCNAMARA, Secretary of Defense, Washington, D.C.

MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY: I am writing in reference to your action which was reported in the San Francisco Chronicle which had the effect of halting the widespread showing by naval and Air Force officers of the films "Operation Abolition” and “Communism on the Map.” While I have not seen the latter film, I do know that the former is a highly distorted version of the events which took place in San Francisco last year, and that it should not be shown in a situation which seems to place the stamp of approval of the Defense Department upon it. I therefore wanted to write to commend you upon the action you have taken.

For your information, it has come to my attention that the John Birch groups and their sympathizers are mounting a correspondence campaign in an attempt to embarrass you regarding this decision, and to prevail upon you to reverse it. Since this campaign will probably be producing a flood of mail, I thought you would want to know that this is part of an organized effort.

Actually, the parallels between the San Francisco incidents and the Reichstag fire of the early 1930's are somewhat striking. You will remember that Adolph Hitler was successful in “blaming" the Communists for that incident, too; and that much of his success was built upon the acceptance of this charge by the German public.

In the face of the genuine dangers of international communism, it seems ever more important that your Government officials stand for a responsible brand of

anticommunism, and against the hysteria which such films as these tend to produce. With every good wish, Sincerely,

Rev. CANON RICHARD BYFIELD.

JUNE 21, 1961. Rev. CANON RICHARD BYFIELD, Executive Assistant to the Bishop, Diocese of California.

DEAR REVEREND BYFIELD: The Secretary of Defense has asked that I thank you for your letter of June 9 concerning certain anti-Communist films and related matters.

Your views regarding the issues involved, and your expression of approval of the action taken by the Department of Defense, are appreciated.

The Department plans and directs an active information program for all members of the Armed Forces, which includes coverage of the worldwide threat of international communism and the techniques which it uses in its avowed campaign for world domination. Every effort is made to keep this program factual and objective and to resist any tendencies toward bias or emotionalism.

You may be sure that your thoughtful opinions on these matters are welcome here. Sincerely,

ARTHUR SYLVESTER. (In a subsequent letter to the subcommittee the Department of Defense explained the omission of congressional correspondence as follows:)

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,

Washington, D.O., August 25, 1962. JAMES T. KENDALL, Esq., Chief Counsel, Preparedness Investigating Subcommittee, Senate Office Building.

DEAR MR. KENDALL: I understand that a question has been raised as to whether the six letters submitted as an insert on page 5486 of the transcript of the Special Preparedness Subcommittee hearings constitute all the letters requested. As stated in the introductory paragraph of the insert, congressional correspondence falling into the requested category was not included among the letters provided. This exclusion was based upon a longstanding policy of the Department that letters from Members of the Congress and the replies thereto will not be released outside the Department without the consent of the Member of Congress concerned. If the subcommittee desires this correspondence, we will attempt to obtain permission for its release from the Members of Congress involved. Sincerely,

DAVID E. McGIFFERT, Assistant to the Secretary (Legislative Affairs).

LETTERS NOT REFERRED TO MILITARY INTELLIGENCE

Senator THURMOND. Now, Mr. Secretary, did you have Military Intelligence screen the letters the Defense Department received to determine the intent of the individuals or organizations writing the Secretary of Defense?

Mr. SYLVESTER. Senator, is your question did I turn loose the Military Intelligence on citizens who wrote me? No, I did not.

Senator THURMOND. Did you have Military Intelligence screen these letters referred to by the Secretary of Defense, to determine the objections of these individuals or organizations!

Suppose these letters were inspired by groups that are not standing for the best interests of our country? Did you take any steps in any way to obtain information about groups or organizations who were opposing cold war seminars?

Mr. SYLVESTER. My answer would have to be, Senator, if you are asking me if I turned loose Military Intelligence people-I did not.

Senator THURMOND. I did not say turned loose. I asked if you obtained military intelligence advice on the individuals or groups.

Mr. SYLVESTER. My best answer would be
Senator THURMOND. What is your answer?

Mr. SYLVESTER. My answer is that I did not refer these people or these letters to any of the services' intelligence branches. If that is your question, I did not.

PUBLIC INFORMATION ABOUT THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Senator THURMOND. Part of your mission is to initiate and support activities contributing to good relations between the Department of Defense and all segments of the public at home and abroad. This is correct, is it not?

Mr. SYLVESTER. Yes, it is, Senator.

Senator THURMOND. That is set out in the Department of Defense directive. Now, assume that a segment of our public has a particular objective in mind in interfering with, or restricting, specific military cold war educational objectives. How can you respond to the public in a positive manner and still carry out the instructions listed in paragraph 2(1) of your own directive, which states:

Provide the American people with maximum information about the Department of Defense consistent with the national security.

Mr. SYLVESTER. Again, Senator, the question doesn't mean anything to me. It seems to be some hypothetical question which I don't grasp at all.

Senator THURMOND. Do you want me to repeat the question?
Mr. SYLVESTER. If you would desire to, Senator.

Senator THURMOND. Assume that a segment of our public has a particular objective in mind in interfering with, or restricting, specific military cold war educational objectives: Now, how can you, in your position, respond to the public in a positive manner and still carry out the instructions listed in paragraph 2(1), which states, and this is a part of your duties:

Provide the American people with maximum information about the Department of Defense consistent with the national security.

Mr. SYLVESTER. Senator, if I understand the question, it would only come up in specific cases and I will respond in specific cases. I do not see any conflict between the two, unless a community were completely divided. Then I would hope that we did not inject ourselves in the middle of it. But the question, as you give it to me, relates to no specific case that I know of.

Senator THURMOND. Mr. Secretary, my point is this: Numerous witnesses have told this subcommittee of the concerted effort by the Communists and their dupes to undermine military preparedness and willingness to fight. Dr. Beerstecher, Colonel Tarwater, Dr. Sala, and Dr. Bailey demonstrated how the Communist propaganda strives to downgrade and undermine the military in the eyes of our people.

What steps have you taken to determine whether certain complaints of certain segments of our society are, in fact, not designed to weaken U.S. cold war military preparedness?

Mr. SYLVESTER. If that is the Communist aim, it has been a dismal failure in my estimation. I went out to South Vietnam with the Secretary of Defense and I saw our people living right in the frontline with this. I have seen them elsewhere. I don't see any sign that the Communists have either dimmed the will of our people or our men to fight. If that is the objective, it has been a big failure.

Senator THURMOND. What have you done here in this country? Some letters came in complaining about these cold war seminars. How do you know they did not come from Communist or Communist front organizations? What steps did you take to determine whether complaints about military cold war education were bona fide questions? This is an important matter. They wanted you to cancel cold war seminars.

Mr. SYLVESTER. Who is "they”? I don't understand, Senator.

Senator THURMOND. Individuals or organizations who complained about cold war seminars.

Mr. SYLVESTER. The letters inherently themselves reveal in any number of cases different points of view. Some want them canceled for one reason, some for another. These views, as I recall the letters, rather represented a cross section of conflicting views in our country.

Senator THURMOND. Certainly the Communist Party and their fronts have the objective of undermining U.S. military cold war education and preparedness; is that not correct?

Mr. SYLVESTER. I would think it probably was.

REVOLUTIONARY ANTIMILITARISM

Senator THURMOND. Are you familiar with the Communist propaganda technique of revolutionary antimilitarism?

Mr. SYLVESTER. Yes; I think I am.
Senator THURMOND. How is that?
Mr. SYLVESTER. I think I am.

Senator THURMOND. Are you familiar with this technique of Communist propaganda?

Mr. SYLVESTER. Yes; I am.
Senator THURMOND. Can you explain it to us, now?

Mr. SYLVESTER. No, I cannot explain it to you. I have never, frankly, made it a business of mine to try to propagate their propaganda. I am aware of it.

Senator THURMOND. Is it not very important and does this not fall within your area of

responsibility ? Mr. SYLVESTER. To counter Soviet propaganda ?

Senator THURMOND. To be familiar with Communist propaganda techniques such as revolutionary antimilitarism.

Mr. SYLVESTER. I am not clear what you mean by revolutionary antimilitarism. What do you mean by that, Senator?

Senator THURMOND. That is exactly what I wanted to know a few minutes ago, if you understood. We have had witness after witness testify on the Communist propaganda technique of revolutionary antimilitarism. You do not know what that means?

Senator STENNIS. Senator, I would like you to explain that for the record, yourself. I could not understand this from a lot of the witnesses. I would like to know what you mean when you use that term, “revolutionary antimilitarism."

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »