Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

Esprit de corps is the common spirit pervading the members of a group. It implies enthusiasm, devotion, and jealous regard for the honor of the group.

Efficiency is the ability to accomplish successfully an assigned task in the shortest possible time, with the minimum expenditure of means, and with the least possible confusion.

LEADERSHIP

Naval leadership is the art of accomplishing the Navy's mission through people. It is the sum of those qualities of intellect, of human understanding, and of moral character that enables a man to inspire and to manage a group of people successfully.

OBJECTIVES

The creation and maintenance of an organization which will loyally and willingly accomplish any reasonable task, assigned or indicated, and in the absence of orders will initiate suitable action.

BASIC RESPONSIBILITIES

Primary: Accomplishment of the mission.
Secondary : Welfare of the men.

THE LEADER

Prerequisites: Intelligence (high standard); character (positive moral).

Leadership traits are human qualities that simplify the task of applying leadership principles and assist greatly in winning confidence, respect and cooperation.

ESSENTIAL LEADERSHIP TRAITS

Loyalty : True, willing, and unfailing faithfulness to God, country, service unit, seniors, and subordinates.

Dependability : The certainty of the proper performance of duty.

Courage: That quality of mind or temperament which makes one resist the temptation to give way in the face of opposition.

Integrity : Uprightness of character and soundness of moral principles, absolute truthfulness, and honesty.

Initiative: Seeing that which has to be done and commencing a course of action; contains the characteristic of originating ideas, methods, or actions.

Tact: The ability to deal with others without creating offense.

Enthusiasm : The display of sincere interest and exuberance in the performance of duty.

Decisiveness : Ability to reach wise decisions promptly and to announce them in a clear, forceful manner.

Humor: The ability to ppreciate or express what is funny, amusing, or ludicrous in certain situations.

Commonsense : The quality of mind or character which enables one to make intelligent decisions void of emotional bias or illusions.

Bearing: Creating a favorable impression in carriage, appearance, and personal conduct at all times.

Justice: The quality of being impartial and consistent in exercising command.

Judgment: The quality of weighing facts and possible solutions on which to base sound decisions.

Endurance: The mental and physical stamina measured by the ability to stand pain, fatigue, distress, and hardship.

Discretion: The quality of being cautious, prudent, showing good judgment, and good timing.

LEADERSHIP TECHNIQUES Techniques are specific actions taken by the leader in the process of directing his subordinates to get the job done. These actions should :

1. Be guided by the leadership principles.
2. Exhibit the good traits of the leader.
3. Be consistent with the situation.
4. Accomplish one or both of the responsibilities of the leader.

CORSO STATEMENT STATEMENT OF LT. COL. PHILIP J. CORSO, DEPUTY CHIEF, FOREIGN TECHNOLOGY

DIVISION, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

I am Lt. Col. Philip J. Corso, presently holding the position of Deputy Chief, Foreign Technology Division, Office of the Chief of Research and Development, Department of the Army. My duties, in brief, are keeping abreast of all foreign developments which may be of interest to Army research and development, and act as liaison officer with the Technical Intelligence and Security Divisions of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence.

During the Korean war, I was Chief of the Special Projects Branch, Intelligence Division, Far East Command. My duties included the production of intelligence on political and subversive activities in North and South Korea. Within this framework I was responsible for intelligence on Communist activities within our prisoner of war camps in South Korea and the enemy camps in North Korea. Because of the information I had available, early in 1953, I was sent to Korea as a member of the staff of the delegation at Panmunjom. I assisted in the discussions for the exchange of sick and wounded prisoners of war.

Upon my return to the United States, at the request of Mr. C. D. Jackson, special assistant to the President, I was assigned to the Operations Coordinating Board. My initial duties were to do the basic research and prepare data for Dr. Charles Mayo in Committee I at the U.N. on the subject of "Bacteriological Warfare” and “Question of Atrocities Committed by the North Korean and Chinese Communist Forces Against United Nations Prisoners of War in Korea,” delivered by Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge.

My findings revealed that the Chinese Communists with their allies, the North Koreans and Soviet Union, carried on a detailed scientific process aimed at molding war prisoners into forms in which they could be exploited. Prisoners who underwent the experiences and later returned to their own countries reported that the experts assigned to wearing down prisoners were highly trained, efficient, and well educated. They were, in short, specialists in applying psychological rather than physical torment.

These experts were trained in highly specialized schools in the Soviet Union and Communist China. Their methods of eliciting individual compliance are the same in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union as they were in China and Korea.

During my tour of duty at the Operations Coordinating Board, virtually all projects pertaining to prisoners of war and the Soviet ideological threat were assigned to me. I did not agree with the items in our present code of conduct, especially those portions which instructed a soldier on how to act when he became a prisoner of war, mainly, because they were defensive and did not fully consider the nature of the Communist captors and the methods they used to extract confessions or elicit individual compliance.

Some of the returned U.S. prisoners of war that I interviewed stated “they had been taken to Mukden, Manchuria." This was in itself a violation of the so-called neutral status of Communist China. More revealing was the information that the U.S. prisoners of war had been sent to the Soviet Union. None of which ever returned. This information come to me from various sources. It was declassified and placed in one of Ambassador Lodge's speeches. My information was derived from two main sources : Chinese prisoners of war and a high-level Soviet defector. The Chinese prisoners stated that they had seen and talked to U.S. prisoners of war at Man-chou-li, Manchuria. Here the passengers had to be transferred from Chinese to Soviet trains because of the difference in gage of the tracks. The defector stated to me that Soviet Embassy personnel coming from the Soviet Union had told him there were Korean war U.S. prisoners of war in the Soviet Union.

The information upon which I based my studies and conclusions were on intelligence, and research and examination of information over a considerable period of time. I believe that the Communist menace can be exposed and eventually destroyed by revealing the blunt truth of their internal and external manipulations. Treatment of prisoners of war reflected one phase of a conscience system which actively rejects, subverts, and destroys decent standards of conduct and the whole structure of humane values from which they are derived-a system which denies that all men are created equal and are made in the image of God.

CARTER STATEMENT

STATEMENT OF SP4c. JEROME CARTER OF THE U.S. ARMY

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I would like first of all to thank you for this opportunity to appear before you. I would also like to say now that I myself prepared this statement which I am about to read, and therefore in no way should it be considered to be the official view of the Department of Defense, the Department of the Army, or the command of Fort Belvoir.

Since I have not been present at any of the hearings and have not had the opportunity for more than a quick reading of the official record of the hearings, I will confine myself to answering certain questions that have been raised as these questions have been reported by the press, and I am happy to do this.

As I understand the situation, there seems to be no question of proper motivation on my part, but there is some doubt of my competence to teach troop information classes.

I have been identified as a college graduate, and this is true; I have been fortunate in receiving a good education at three respected American universities: I received a bachelor's degree cum laude from the Catholic University of America here in Washington, a master's degree in classics from Fordham University, and a master's degree from New York University where I was enrolled as a member of the Graduate Institute of Book Publishing.

It is true that I have never taken any course in communism, nor have I had any special training in its theory, history, strategy, or tactics. I know there are many questions in these areas which could be put to me that I could not answer.

I regard myself, however, as reasonably knowledgeable concerning the subject. When I was interrogated some weeks ago by Mr. Hartel, of the investigating staff of this committee, I was not given the quiz he prepared for members of the Marine Corps. But if I had, I think I would have done fairly well on it.

Most of my knowledge of communism comes from my own private reading and from discussion of cold war topics with friends. I read a number of current periodicals—I shall deal more specifically with these in a moment and also a certain number of books dealing with current affairs. For example, when I heard one afternoon several weeks ago, that I had been mentioned in these hearings, there was on my desk a copy of a book entitled “Communist Revolutionary Warfare,” by George K. Tanham, of the Rand Corp. This book I had bought a few days earlier at the Savile Book Shop in Georgetown. I also recall that when I was interrogated by Mr. Hartel, I mentioned to him that I had recently read “Protracted Conflict,” by Robert Strauz-Hupe and others, a book that is regarded, I believe, as something of a contemporary classic on communism. Just last week I read "The Uncertain Trumpet," by Gen. Maxwell D. Taylor. Such books would not, I submit, be the ordinary reading matter of someone grossly untutored in communism.

Now for the periodicals I read : At the present time I subscribe to only two magazines that deal with current events. The Reporter, a magazine well known to you, I'm sure, is sent to my home in Wyoming. I read it regularly when I'm there, but only occasionally when I'm at Fort Belvoir. I recall, incidentally, that Mr. Hartel seemed surprised to learn that it was sold on the newsstand of the post exchange at Fort Belvoir, and also seemed surprised when I said I would be privately indignant-although not in a position to make any sort of protest—if it were removed from sale there.

The Commonweal, a weekly review edited by Roman Catholic laymen, can probably be considered a liberal publication but, given the well-known position of the Catholic Church vis-a-vis communism, can scarcely be termed a promoter of the Communist or pro-Communist line.

There are many other magazines, however, that I read. Among these are Time and Newsweek, both of which I read more or less thoroughly every week. Also U.S. News & World Report, the Atlantic Monthly, Harper's, and also Human Events, the Washington newsletter that is noted, I believe, for its vigorous anti-Communist line. None of these that I just mentioned do I read with any special regularity. And, as I have stated before to Mr. Hartel, there is no magazine whose editorial policies I have not at some time or other disagreed with. Incidentally, one of the magazines I read is the New Guard, a conservative and strongly anti-Communist magazine. In the March issue of this magazine there is an article by one of the members of this committee, Senator Thurmond, and further on in the issue, a very short book review which I wrote under the pen name John Fairfax.

It is true that I have read The Nation. I doubt, however, that I have read more than three or four issues of this magazine in the last year. I have never stated more than the simple fact that I have read it. I categorically deny that I have ever used this publication in preparing any of the classes I have taught. I have no idea where that information came from.

As for newspapers, I read the Washington Post, the Evening Star, and the New York Times with regularity. Frequently I also read the New York HeraldTribune and the Wall Street Journal.

Now, in the preparation of my classes, it is untrue to say that I have not used, or have rejected, official documents. I have never prepared a class without making use of the available official documentsgenerally known as troop information guidance sheets-prepared for this purpose by the Department of the Army, the Military District of Washington, and, occasionally the troop information office at Fort Belvoir.

Naturally I have supplemented my preparation for classes with the knowledge gained from my private reading. A few weeks ago, for instance, I taught a class entitled “Elements of Our Congo Policy." For this I made use of two addresses—copies of which were provided by the troop information office at Fort Belvoir-by the Under Secretary of State, Mr. Ball, and the Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Mr. Williams. I also, of course, made use of the knowledge of the situation in the Congo by my reading of newspapers and magazines since the date of the Congolese independence. Another class I taught, dealing with the situation in Algeria, was naturally influenced by a visit I made to that nation shortly before the outbreak of hostilities there in 1954.

I remember one class I taught entitled “The U.S. Space Program.” For this class there was no official document easily available, and I made use of magazines and newspapers, especially the New York Times and U.S. News & World Report, both of which had fine articles on the subject.

I have gone through my files and found 26 copies of old lesson plans that I had used. I had prepared these plans solely for my own use as an instructor. In 22 of these 26 instructor's lesson plans, I list at least one official Government publication as a reference.

Now, you will notice that none of these classes which I've just mentioned dealt with communism as such. To the best of my knowledge, none of my classes have, although I don't believe I have ever taught a class that communism was not mentioned in, and frequently at that. I should also like to note here that other classes, not troop information classes, but classes that are part of the mandatory training program at Fort Belvoir, deal with communism. For example, I believe twice each year one class must be taught to explain the code of conduct that has been formulated to guide American fighting men who become prisoners of war. I myself have never taught one of these classes.

But I have always tried to emphasize our own way of life rather than that of communism. I remember clearly teaching a class entitled “How the Stock Market Works.” I began this class by pointing out that the so-called Wall Street imperialists were a favorite target of Communist propaganda, and that prisoners of war might expect to be subjected to much propaganda on this point. It was important, I said, to understand just what Wall Street and the stock market are so as not to fall victim to such propaganda. I even spent several weeks collecting several hundred financial pages from newspapers so we could spend a part of the class learning how to read a financial page. In this connection I was very happy to read that General Shoup said "Our basic teaching for young marines is love of our own country, our own way of life."

Other classes I have taught have treated, for instance, the crisis in southeast Asia, the national budget, the Berlin situation, the Alliance for Progress, Cuba, the necessity for internal security on Army posts, the problem of bad debts, and so forth.

In none of these subjects am I an expert. I am simply an Army draftee trying to do well in the job to which I have been assigned. I have no doubt that, in the teaching of such a wide variety of subjects, I have made factual and interpretive errors which would easily be picked up by an expert in the subject. Members of this committee, I think, may have found errors-perhaps amusing or naive but not, I hope, serious—in a class I taught with the title “Your Congressman at Work.” I repeat that there are undoubtedly many things about communism I don't know. When Mr. Hartel interrogated me, I remember he asked me if I knew how many French officers inside Dienbienphu were Communists. I told him I had no idea, and I was astounded when he told me there were as many French Communist officers inside Dienbienphu as there were Communist officers outside.

I would like now to turn to the matter of my security clearance. At the time of my interrogation by Mr. Hartel I told him that I did not have one. As I understand the situation and I'm still a little confused about it, I did at that time have the security clearance required as a troop information instructor for the U.S. Army Engineer Center Regiment. Since then, I have also been given a favorable national agency check through the G-2's of Fort Belvoir and the Military District of Washington. This fulfills the requirements as stated by Army regulation for information personnel.

I have not sought access to classified material, because I do not know of what use this would be to me. I could not pass the information I learned from classified materials on to anyone else except on a need-to-know basis. I do not think the weekly instruction of hundreds of men with various ranks and jobs would meet the need-to-know criterion. But what if it did? Are American soldiers to be told things about communism-as part of their routine training, regardless of rank or jobs—that the American people are not allowed to know, that I as a private citizen—such as I will be in a few days will not know? If there is such important information in these classified documents, information that would increase our awareness of the danger of communism without compromising security, I think this information should be made available to the American people, not just troop information instructors or soldiers in general. Therefore, I have never asked to see classified documents as aids in the preparation of my classes, and I do not think it is necessary that I do so.

Now there are a few remarks in general that I would like to make. In the first place, although my competence to teach classes has been called into question, no person from the investigating staff of this committee has, to the best of my knowledge, ever attended one of my classes. I have taught several hundred men a week for approximately a year and a half, and many of these men have been rotated according to standard Army practice, so I think it is safe to say that in this period I have instructed several thousand men, many of them decorated veterans of World War II and the Korean war. Yet my competence has never been questioned, to my knowledge, by any of them, and I have received superior ratings—the highest ratings—from inspecting officers. I suggest that some any-of these men be questioned with regard to my ability and effectiveness as a teacher. The proof, after all, is in the pudding.

There are also some comments about the troop information program in general that I would like to make. It is far from perfect. I myself have been critical of it many times. Some of these criticisms, together with some suggestions for remedies, I hope to incorporate into an article for publication in a national magazine in the near future. I sincerely hope the work of this subcommittee will greatly improve the program.

I cannot speak for troop information officials, but I believe I would be right in stating that the troop information program has never been conceived as a strictly anti-Communist program. There are many facets to it. The small newspaper of which I am editor is part of the troop information program at Fort Belvoir. The newspaper, incidentally, has received a number of awards from the Department of Defense and the Department of the Army and is hardly the product, I like to think, of a “dedicated but confused" staff.

Finally, I believe the troop information program is planned on broad terms to meet varied educational needs of members of the U.S. Army as determined by the Army and local commanders, and has never been thought of as a course in communism or anticommunism.

Thank you for your attention. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

AMERICAN LEGION STATEMENT

THE AMERICAN LEGION,

Washington, D.O., March 2, 1962. Hon. JOHN STENNIS, Chairman, Special Preparedness Subcommittee, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

MY DEAR SENATOR STENNIS: Your letter of November 27, 1961, was received after our national executive committee had held its last scheduled meeting for the calendar year 1961. It does not meet again until May of 1962. Before

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »