How do you justify the apparent inequity in the ready release of information from the Department of Defense on an anti-Communist general such as General Walker and the restriction of information on a pro-Communist general such as Hester?

Mr. SYLVESTER. I do not see any relationship between the two, beoffice is not the office which restricts information.

cause my

My office is the office which responds to requests for information. My office is not the office of classification. It is bound by classification, but it does not make it, does not set the rules for classification. It is the office of declassification, and I question the implication that we were the "transmission belt" for anything that was not in the public domain or in response to perfectly legitimate inquiries about General Walker.

Senator THURMOND. How did it come that the information which was classified, was given to the public?

Mr. SYLVESTER. I am not sure what you are referring to, Senator. Senator THURMOND. Where did it come from?

Mr. SYLVESTER. I am not sure that I understand what information was classified that you are talking about. I know of no classified information about General Walker that was given to the public.

Senator THURMOND. The information that was brought out at the first hearing when the Secretary of Defense was here. You might go back and look that up (S. Rept. 191, pp. 11-14).

SUPPRESSION OF "OPERATION ABOLITION"

Now, Mr. Secretary, this brings us to the handling by your office of letters concerning the film "Operation Abolition."

It is my understanding that you received, in the period of January 1, 1961, to April 1, 1961, approximately 50 communications from a large number of organizations in the United States which had as their objective the elimination of the film "Operation Abolition" from military training programs as well as in public showings.

During recent testimony of Lieutenant Colonel Wagasky, documentation was provided on the manner in which a network of Communist and pro-Communist fronts had organized a nationwide drive to bring propaganda pressure to bear on official agencies using this film.

Have you seen this documentation?

Mr. SYLVESTER. No; I have not.

Senator THURMOND. Do you feel it would help you and your staff to obtain a clearer picture of how the Communists and their fronts manipulate public opinion pressures to eliminate anti-Communist programs?

Mr. SYLVESTER. I would be delighted to have it at any time.
Senator THURMOND. The facts are these.

The suppression of the film "Operation Abolition" was basically Communist inspired. However, some non-Communist organizations, uninformed or misguided to varying degrees by propaganda, joined in the campaign to suppress the film. These hearings have clearly pointed up the value of the film "Operation Abolition."

This film is a valuable intelligence training aid to demonstrate how a small cadre of Communist agitators can manipulate an uninformed

group of people and turn American students against their own best interest.

Witness after witness has testified as to the value of this film for training purposes.

In a way, the suppression of the film "Operation Abolition," in which the Department of Defense collaborated, is identical to this technique of manipulating public opinion by using uninformed individuals to do the dirty work of the Communists.

It was clearly demonstrated during these hearings that the intelligence agencies of the three services should have been consulted before the Department of Defense responded to propaganda influences promoted through letter writing campaigns and slanted editorials.

Intelligence was not consulted. The public information people of the Department of Defense took it upon themselves to restrict the use of this film, and this is just what the Communists had hoped for. Do you see my point?

Mr. SYLVESTER. No.

I think it is a very badly taken and unsupported point of view.

Senator THURMOND. I have been informed that the decision to restrict the film from use in troop information programs was concurred in by your office.

Is that true?

Mr. SYLVESTER. Pardon me, I did not hear what you said.

Senator THURMOND. I have been informed that the decision to restrict the film from use in troop information programs was concurred in by your office.

Mr. SYLVESTER. Yes, I think that is true. We had a better film. Senator THURMOND. Again, this demonstrates the lack of what we have termed "quality control" in these committee hearings.

FAMILIARITY WITH TECHNIQUES OF COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA, SOCIAL AGITATION AND SUBVERSION

Do you have anyone on your staff who is specifically familiar with the techniques of Communist propaganda, social agitation, and subversion?

Mr. SYLVESTER. In an expert way, do you mean?

Senator THURMOND. Well, who is familiar with

Mr. SYLVESTER. I am not clear what your question goes to.

Are we aware of Communist techniques, yes; I think we are all

aware.

Senator THURMOND. With the techniques of Communist propaganda, social agitation, and subversion?

Mr. SYLVESTER. I think we are aware; yes.

I think any well-educated person is aware, any person who has lived through the last 25 years is aware.

Senator THURMOND. Mr. Secretary, if you believe that the average person is aware of the techniques of Communist propaganda, I am inclined to think you are not well informed on that subject.

Mr. SYLVESTER. I said the average, well-educated person, I think, is; yes. I do not think you have to be an expert, Senator.

Senator THURMOND. I think these hearings will demonstrate the fact that that is incorrect.

If you have time, you might read the transcript of the hearings.

Mr. SYLVESTER. I think you must judge these things on the results, Senator. After 25 years, I would say the results are rather pitiful. Senator THURMOND. The inability of your office to provide "quality" answers to letters from the public concerning education on communism was demonstrated in your letter to Senator Javits dated October 3, 1961.

STATUS OF "OPERATION ABOLITION"

Mr. SYLVESTER. I would like the record to show, Senator, that our office concurred in that it was not necessary to have "Operation Abolition" a required film. It has been on call for anybody to see in the services, and the record should show that.

Senator THURMOND. The record should also show that it was taken off the list of prescribed training films for the troops, too, was it not? Mr. SYLVESTER. That is whatever

Senator THURMOND. It cannot be used as a prescribed training film now, can it?

Mr. SYLVESTER. I believe it is not used.

Senator THURMOND. That is correct.

Mr. SYLVESTER. Again, prescribed training films are not within my bailiwick.

Senator THURMOND. It is not permitted to be used as a prescribed training film. The directive so states and the record contains that in several places.

Mr. SYLVESTER. I think that is correct. That is a controversial film. It was replaced by one made by the Department of Defense.

FILMING AND EDITING OF "OPERATION ABOLITION"

Senator THURMOND. What is controversial about it? It shows actual scenes taken in San Francisco showing the Communists at work. I happened to have been out there at that time and went around there and witnessed a great deal of it myself. It shows students led by Communists-Communists, and well-known Communists, led that group-and some people were trapped innocently.

Mr. SYLVESTER. I think the record should show that the film was an edited film and not the film taken by the two television companies as they took it, any more than if you should edit my testimony and then give it out as my testimony.

Senator THURMOND. Have you seen the House

Mr. SYLVESTER. HUAC report on it.

Senator THURMOND. The House Committee on Un-American Activities report on it?

Mr. SYLVESTER. I have read it carefully.

Senator THURMOND. And you know what their findings were that they considered the film to be accurate.

PAINE-JAVITS-SYLVESTER CORRESPONDENCE ON ANTICOMMUNIST

MATERIAL

Is this a copy of your recent letter to Senator Javits?

Mr. SYLVESTER. Yes, this is my letter, Senator.

Senator THURMOND. The staff has found that your letter is lacking in some very obvious specifications which I will point out.

Dr. Paine, president of Houghton College, had written Senator Javits because of his concern over the absence of hard-hitting publications, films and other material on specific techniques of communism to include unconventional aggression.

The reply you provided appeared to be misleading and inaccurate. Dr. Paine was not looking for films like "Challenge of Ideas" for the college curriculum. In fact, I am sure he teaches citizenship in great depth. The film "Challenge of Ideas" is weak and uninspiring.

You recommended "Anatomy of Aggression" which shows only the conventional military side of Sino-Soviet aggression, a very one-sided film dealing strictly with military problems.

You did recommend the film "Communist Target-Youth." However, you told Dr. Paine that the film would be available in the latter part of October 1961. It was indicated in the record of these hearings that the distribtuion of "Communist Target-Youth" did not begin until February 1962, and that, even now, the services themselves do not have sufficient copies of this film for their own use.

This has been brought out in the testimony here.

I know of no way in which Dr. Paine could obtain the film "Communist Target-Youth" for use in his college at this time. It is exactly this type of misinformation that caused the original request by Dr. Paine, who apparently had considerable experience in finding that hard-hitting, official publications and films are frequently unavailable.

Would this film be available now to Dr. Paine if he wants to use it? Mr. SYLVESTER. To the best of my knowledge, it would be. I do not think that you made any point of misinformation. This letter, I think, at the time it was written was accurate, correct, and not misinforming

anyone.

The information as to the fact it would be ready in the latter part of October was provided us by the people who had made the film, which was made under the direction of Mr. Broger in the Office of Information and Education.

Senator THURMOND. The enclosure of your letter to Senator Javits omitted numerous hard-hitting films on communism about which Dr. Paine had questions.

Some of these are, as follows:

AIF No. 1, "Defense Against Enemy Propaganda."

TFI-5083, "A Look at Communism."

TFI-5316, "Security Subversion."

TF30-1954, "Soviet Soldier."

TF30-8706, "The Case of Comrade T."

ASFR 125, "The Crime of Korea."

Was there any reason for excluding these hard-hitting films on communism; and, if so, what is the reason?

Mr. SYLVESTER. Have you got the enclosures there which gave the list of films? I think you will find that. The record that you gave me does not include those. I know of no reason to exclude those films. Senator THURMOND. Among the pamphlets, you included DOD fact sheets but you did not include Pamphlet DA 20-79, "Defense Against Enemy Propaganda," and "Communist Propaganda: A Fact Book 1957-58."

What is your reason, or was there any reason, for the exclusion from your letter of these hard-hitting publications on communism?

80752-62-pt. 636

Mr. SYLVESTER. I know of no reason to exclude them except other hard-hitting ones were included, "Democracy Faces Communism," "The Obligation of Freedom," "Ideas in Conflict," "Freedom or Communism."

My recollection is that this list was prepared by Mr. John Broger's office, the head of Information and Education, who put these lists out, who prepared this material, so if it was excluded, it was probably not given to us by the makers of this material.

I assume from that, that they felt this was a pretty good list.

TRANSMITTAL OF COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA IN AMERICAN NEWS MEDIA

Senator THURMOND. A study of the influences of Communist propaganda on the American press was provided by an advertising agency in New York City.

It points out clearly that the inadvertent and unwitting transmittal of Communist propaganda today in American news media has gained in the past few years. The analysts in this case were Russian-language specialists who clearly identified the similarity between the original Russian Communist propaganda and its translation into English and subsequent releases in American newspapers.

Page 2, paragraph 2, of this study entitled "Publicizing Domestic Opposition to U.S.A. Defense Measures," reads, as follows:

The AP distributes, and the Times (Jan. 12, 1960) runs, an account without byline and written in "folksy" style of germ-warfare foes picketing an Army test base.

"On the Beach," which frightens to despair, is pushed by film reviewers (Times, Jan. 24, 1960; Parents Magazine, February 1960) and by whoever chooses what letters from readers to publish (Times, Jan. 24, 1960). It receives a free and gratuitous plug in NYC subway editorial car cards (early January 1960).

What sounds like a press agent's gimmick-the missing celebrity-is used to publicize Linus Pauling, advocate of unilateral nuclear disarmament (Times, Feb. 1, 1960).

Now, this is just an extract from a wide range of materials. Let me read from paragraph 5, which reads as follows:

MARXIST AND PRO-COMMUNIST IDEAS ARE PUBLISHED OUTRIGHT

The "Play of the Week" (channel 13) has a run of anticapitalist plays, especially after becoming sponsored by a company that will not interfere with it (Times, Jan. 12, 14, and 16, 1960). It had heretofore employed an actor (late 1959) blacklisted since taking the fifth amendment before the House Un-American Activities-namely, John Randolph.

Are you familiar with any of those?

Mr. SYLVESTER. You lost me there, Senator. It got too complicated with figures. I really got lost on that one. I am not clear what you were reading from.

Senator THURMOND. Mr. Secretary, we will just pass on to another question.

Mr. Chairman, may I have about 5 minutes. I will try and shorten this all I can.

Senator STENNIS. That is all right, Senator.

We will take a 10-minute recess.

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