By far most of our cases pertain to preinductees. Only a very small percentage of the young men appearing at the recruiting stations are of interest to the personnel security program. Of these who are brought to our attention and are investigated because of questions regarding their loyalty, only very few are found to be really affiliated and associated with subversive organizations, or to favor ideologies inimical to the best interests of the United States. It is this small percentage of potential inductees with whom we are concerned here. Young people who have at one time or another favored subversive ideologies may be divided into two main groups: Children of Communist sympathizers who have grown up in an environment permeated with Communist influence, and youngsters who turn to communism because of deep inner frustration, regardless of their parents' views. To discuss the first group first: Just as the cultural or religious environment of a family has a deep and lasting influence on the children, so does the political climate of the home greatly contribute to their political development. In most of our cases of this kind, the parents turned to communism during the depression and have either become so deeply involved that Communist activities have become their main purpose in life, or they have gradually become disinterested, but have never made the break. From their early childhood, their children have been exposed to subversive influences, have attended Communist camps, schools, parties, and meetings, under the sponsorship of their parents. Some of these children followed their parents into subversive affiliations.

In quite a few cases, however, the children-who had a chance to acquaint themselves with our free political philosophy in school and in their daily lives-are turning away from the subversive proclivities of their parents despite the home influences and, in most such cases, even turn against their parents with rebellion and contempt. We find that they are trying to forget their past parent-induced Communist activities. They explain during interviews how they have become convinced, through rational examination of the facts, that these ideas are phony. Without having kept statistics on this point, I wish to express my feeling that, on the whole, the Communists are losing the struggle for the second generation.

Let us now briefly examine the second group that I mentioned, the individuals who turn to communism because of frustration, and not because of subversive parental influences. I even dare to make the sweeping statement that whenever you look at a Communist, you look at an unhappy and frustrated person. And I may add here, which I did not include in my prepared statement, that we have seen cases where this even borders on emotional disturbance. We have found many such instances in our security cases.

Some of these frustrations are broken homes, alcoholic parents, neglect, overly strict discipline, economic plight, racial discrimination, inability to keep up in school, disappointment on a job or inability to find a job, or a general maladjustment to their environment or life in general.

I am no psychologist, but I feel that those young people are attempting to find a group in which they can share their frustrations with other equally frustrated individuals, where they can find recognition, even be a "big shot," or where they can fight the world which they blame for their own shortcomings. The Communists, of course,

play on these exortines and pose is the shampions of the underdog the very areas that the frustrated individuals feel that an injustore has been done to them. The victims of the frustrations are emotionally too mailed to see that the free society is the best champion of their wuse; they three their eyes and ears to every fact or Argument because of their ban

What then, man be fine abeat these misguided young people?

The first and most important step is the home. Here, I am afraid, I shall sound tonne Loving parents, bringing up their children in a wholesome, happy home, teaching them to love their country, showing them the advantages of our free democratic society, and imbuing thèm with the thought that they have duties and responsibilities, as well as rights, are the best bulwark against communism.

We all know that many parents fall far short of this goal. Let us not talk about the obvions problem of the unhappy homes. Even in the so-called happy homes, the children chen see a materialistic attitude on the part of their parents which stresses what they can get, rather than what they can give. Constant talk about money, little shady deals, cheating on the income tax or some payment or compensation-all these destroy the feeling of patriotism, the feeling for service and duty. Let us take the most frequent case encountered in my line of work:

If parents continuously bemoan as a tragedy and imposition the 2 years a son has to spend in the service, can you blame the young man for being an easy prey for the better-Red-than-dead groups and, in the end, falling for the sales pitch of subversive organizations! But, let us face it, gentlemen: The Army cannot change parents, and the Congress cannot legislate happy homes. But looking at my own teenage daughter and her friends, I am confident that we are justified in our hopes that today's youngsters will be better parents than the members of our own generation.

The next step is school, and that includes grade school, high school, and college. The school cannot be a substitute for the home; it has a mission of its own in the process of forming responsible, patriotic citizens. In the performance of this mission, the school can alleviate some of the detrimental influences to which some students are exposed at home. At all levels, courses in civics, history, and political science can and should present to the students the historical development of our country, our political philosophy, and our free democratic system which gives us, that is, them, a chance to make the best of their lives and to effect by the legal means of the democratic process any change they desire in our society. These courses must be taught by well informed, understanding teachers. A great deal has been done in this area and, although there may be exceptions of which I am not aware, almost all high schools require courses in civics and American history, and most-if not all-colleges require courses in American history and history of Western civilization.

I am very proud to have the privilege of teaching such courses at a distinguished institution. I teach night courses on the history of Western civilization at Pace College in New York City. The economic philosophy of Marxism naturally belongs into this course. I devote as much time as I can to this subject, presenting the basic principles of Marxism to the class factually and objectively, and then throw the class open to questions and discussion. The results are

nost gratifying. My students have asked very intelligent questions and, in the course of the discussion, have themselves arrived at conclusions about the weaknesses and fallacies of the Communist system, and the danger that the Communists pose to our society.

I must state to the credit of Pace College that I have not yet encountered the typical Communist-trained seal who would overwhelm with an avalanche of well-rehearsed arguments in the set pattern of his pseudoscience. I do not know how well I would fare in such a

case.

I wish to state in this connection that I am opposed to special antiCommunist indoctrination programs in school; this I consider a negative approach. I am for a positive approach, in which the principles of communism are presented in the normal course of the teaching of appropriate subjects, just as other political and economic systems are presented. The fallacies of communism and its dangers to our society should then be developed by a comparison of these two systems in the usual form of classroom discussion. I am opposed to indoctrination of any kind: First, because this is a method inherent to totalitarianism and is incompatible with our free democratic society; secondly, because it would only bring forth the opposite of the desired result by awakening an automatic reflex of antagonism on the receiving end. As I have stated before, the children from Communist homes who break away from subversive influences are convinced by their own experiences in the democratic society, not by someone who is trying to indoctrinate them and hammer into their heads how bad com

munism is.

My views on this point seem to be supported by what I have heard about the reasons why some of our captured soldiers in Korea fell victims to Communist propaganda. The prisoners who gave in to brainwashing were persuaded because they knew little about our own history, economic system, and our free democratic society, because they were ignorant of what America is and what she stands for, rather than because they lacked understanding of the Communist conspiracy. This brings us to the last step, service in the Army. The Army is a fighting force, established and maintained to protect the Nation against foreign enemies. The trained mission of the Army is geared to producing soldiers, to making men disciplined, courageous, and skilled fighters. I do not see how the Army can also take over the educational functions of the home and the school and correct the deficiencies of upbringing and education. In addition, it is clear from what I have stated before that I consider the teaching of our American heritage and philosophy the best means of combating Communist influence on our young citizens. The Army, however, cannot set up history and political science classes for our soldiers. First sergeants and platoon leaders are hardly the proper persons to teach these fields, and any attempt in that direction would only be resented and ridiculed by the soldiers.

Instructors must be professionals in the field which they teach and the only way in which a program of this sort can be carried out is by hiring qualified educators. Such a proposal, however, would pose another problem. The Army has members of greatly different levels of intelligence and education. To expose them all, in one group, to the same educational program would be self-defeating. It is just as deadly for an unsophisticated audience to be lectured to in terms above

their level of understanding, as it is for a highly intelligent and educated group to be exposed to a presentation geared to an eighth-grade level audience. The troops thus would have to be broken down into various groups for the purpose of instruction. This, I believe, could not be done.

However, I am definitely in favor of informing the troops on the subject of the Communist world conspiracy, as well as the demonstrated domestic Communist effort, by a professionally prepared series of interesting and challenging documentaries, to be shown at regular intervals. Care should be taken in the use of these films that they do not become stereotyped and that individual soldiers are not repeatedly exposed to the same film. This was the case with some training films in World War II, when training films became a joke of the Army.

There is another aspect of Army life that could build strong defenses against subversive influences-esprit de corps. This aspect has been badly neglected. How many soldiers even know the words of the Army song? We are too quick to transfer men from unit to unit, to change names and unit designations. Why call a training establishment first 9th Infantry Division, then change it to U.S. Army Training Center, Infantry, with the 1st and 2d Training Regiments? No soldier can strut down the street, bragging that, "The USATCI, Fort Dix, is the best USATCI in the U.S. Army." Why not give the center a historical divisional designation, even if it is a training establishment, and apply the same principle to the training regiments? I strongly believe that the soldiers should be taught U.S. Army history, that unit tradition should be stressed and that the soldiers should be made to feel that they are part of a distinguished unit.

During my service in Berlin I was assigned to the Allied Staff and served at that combined headquarters with British and French, as well as American personnel. The three or four American soldiers on the staff were long-time Regular Army NCO's who posed no problem of subversive association. Thus, I had no experiences relating to education on communism during my recent assignment to Berlin.

BUCHSBAUM'S VIEWS ON TROOP INFORMATION PROGRAM

Senator STENNIS. Major, I had to leave for a telephone call and missed a little of your statement as you read it, but I glanced back through it and then followed you through the rest of it.

I am glad to see your conclusion that you do not propose that the Army go into home training, school training or anything of that kind, and that you also recognize the problem of training those that are in the Army, even though the primary mission is to be soldiers,

as you say.

As I get your reasoning, you are rather much in accord with the witnesses who have testified before in this hearing, beginning with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and others.

Are you familiar with the testimony we have had so far?

Major BUCHSBAUM. No, sir; I am not.

Senator STENNIS. You are not. Well, I was going to ask you to point out any major matter that you thought was in error, or with which you did not agree.

Your main point is that qualified professional educators could do this training and this-well, you do not like to term it indoctrination. I do not either.

Major BUCHSBAUM. No, sir.

I prefer to call it training and education.

Senator STENNIS. Yes. At the same time you say that the employment of the educators themselves would raise different problems. Major BUCHSBAUM. Well, sir, if I may add at this point thatSenator STENNIS. What do you propose? That is my question. Put it in a "nutshell." What do you propose?

Major BUCHSBAUM. A professional program, sir.

Now, I did not have enough time to think it through carefully and decide which kind of a program would be the best, since I was only notified, as you probably know, on very short notice. However, I do believe that the training in an area of ideology, in a more or less abstract area, should be left to a trained, well-educated, well-qualified individual, rather than to a man who is an expert in radar, an expert in gunnery.

That man can teach gunnery and he can teach radar, but we should not assume, because he is a good leader and is knowledgeable in those fields, that he is also able to train his troops or to educate and inform his troops on very complicated, highly technical, intellectual areas. Senator STENNIS. I can understand that problem.

I think you have been very practical in most of your observations. But, do you propose that the Army hire educators, as such, to carry on these programs, or that it be done through pamphlets?

Major BUCHSBAUM. Sir, I thought, and I did include in my statement a suggestion which I consider to be the most effective. Again, sir, as I stated in my opening statement, I am not qualified-I have no experience in the educational field in the Army. I have never been with Troop Information and Education. However, I feel, as an individual who has spent many years in the Army and has also been connected with education in civilian life, that

Senator STENNIS. The subcommittee is interested in something definite. Do you have some definite plan that you can suggest? Major BUCHSBAUM. Yes, sir, I have.

Senator STENNIS. Well, if you do, outline it very briefly.
Major BUCHSBAUM. I have ideas, sir.

I did mention it also in my statement, and that is a program particularly by visual aids. By that, I mean particularly films, in which the problem is presented to the troops and in a series, not only in one film. that may be shown and may be shown again two or three times, then another film to be shown after an interval of 6 months, but I would say a continuous series of films which show the development of the Communist conspiracy abroad as well as at home.

Senator STENNIS. All right, is there anything else that you definitely recommend?

Major BUCHSBAUM. I do not have any recommendations offhand; no, sir.

Senator STENNIS. All right, Senator Thurmond, may I call on you? You can develop what you have in mind.

Senator THURMOND. Major Buchsbaum, I do not believe I saw a biography of you.