I think that an officer in uniform is part of the executive branch of this Government, and he is bound in public speeches to conform to the policy of the administration. In his private conversations, propriety is the only governing factor, as I see it. Mr. KENDALL. So far as you can determine, General, was there any difference in the stringency or strictness of the enforcement of the speech review process during this administration as compared to previous administrations? General WHITE. In respect to foreign policy, security, I do not think so. But there is another aspect to the control of speeches which now should be introduced, and perhaps was the origin of much of this, and that is the well-known factor of inter-Service rivalry. And I will, in reply to your question, state that unquestionably under Mr. McNamara, the subject of inter-Service rivalry has been more strictly looked after than at any time previously, and it is that that I think has had a lot to do with the so-called review of public speeches. The Chief of Staff of the Air Force gets up and tells about how useless certain of the Navy's weapons systems are, and you can be sure that the next speech that an admiral makes is going to have something to say about the Air Force system. It got to be quite a problem in the Department of Defense, and I am sure that all exSecretaries of Defense would be likely to testify in the same manner. MANDATORY CHANGE DURING RB-47 NEGOTIATIONS Mr. KENDALL. General, if you will look at the first page of this abstract that we have furnished you, let me direct your attention to a speech which you made to the 71st Annual Chamber of Commerce Dinner in Montgomery, Ala., on January 30, 1961. The original wording was: The Soviet economic-military potential is guided by a regime which can count on the backing-however unenthusiastic of the Russian people. In addition, the Soviets have another great intangible resource which can best be described as gall. They are showing ever-increasing confidence even arrogance-in their military and scientific strength and in the growth of their influence. Spawned and perpetuated in brutal wars, dedicated to the mission of world revolution—their fervor for subversion and force makes them believe that Communist domination of the world is inevitable. They are further strengthened in this belief by their close partnership with Communist China. That change is indicated to be mandatory as made by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Public Affairs. What, in your opinion, was wrong with your original statement? General WHITE. I don't think there was anything wrong with it. As a matter of fact, I didn't write it. I think it is pretty good oratory myself, but if they didn't want me to say it, I wasn't going to bleed and die over it. Something else is about as good to me. Mr. KENDALL. They substituted in lieu of that: Furthermore, in any evolution of the Communist threat, we cannot disregard the close partnership between Soviet Russia and Communist China. Which would you consider the stronger statement? General WHITE. I am looking at the date. Mind you, I am not certain of the date, but somewhere along that time we were walking on eggshells to make certain that nothing was done in this country to prejudice the release of our RB-47 crews that were in the hands of the Soviets, and I was willing to go to most any lengths of toning speeches down during that period-I think this was prior to their release not to prejudice in any way the release of those young officers. Now, that could or could not have been. Certainly, the original speech was much stronger. The other one is much weaker. Mr. KENDALL. General, I believe the release of the RB-47 fliers was the 25th of January 1961. General WHITE. I am not sure, but even if that was so, this speech certainly for the 27th of January was written and cleared well before that date. Mr. KENDALL. And it was probably or certainly submitted before the 25th of January? General WHITE. I would be certain of that. Mr. KENDALL. At that time do you recall how many days were required for clearance? General WHITE. No, it would not be possible to give a fixed period. Sometimes it took a long time. I think a lot depended on when the speeches were ready. If they had to be cleared in a hurry, they were. If not, I think it took longer. LIMITATIONS ON MILITARY ROLE IN COLD WAR EDUCATION Mr. KENDALL. Going to another subject for a moment, General, what is your opinion of the responsibility of the military in educating the public to the menace of the cold war? General WHITE. Being frank, I am going to be frank again; I honestly have great difficulty with that facet of your investigation. I do not have a firm, fixed opinion. I think that it is something that I am happy to see this committee looking into. It seems to me the role of the military in the education of the U.S. public is a very sensitive question and one that can be misused. I am not sure that I would like it, if I were a member of the public. And I am equally sure that as a member of the military I would have a question that the education of the U.S. public is part of my main job. I will state again that I think communism is a threat both externally and internally, is the greatest this Nation has ever faced. But I also say as a matter of principle I question the role of the military in that process. Senator SALTONSTALL. Counsel, would you yield? General, that is a very interesting comment. Would your opinion be changed if you changed the word "educate" to "inform"? In other words, could a well-informed military officer with a high rank and of known patriotism and courage have a responsibility or duty of informing the public, rather than educating the public? Would that not change your opinion that you just expressed? I think your comment was an extraordinarily interesting one. General WHITE. Informing the public about the military role visa-vis the Communist external threat is one that I do not have as much people about the internal threat, although I consider the internal threat just, perhaps, as great as the external threat. I don't know. I have a fairly good, did have a few months ago, a pretty good knowledge of the external threat that the Soviet Union presented, but I am not sure that I am necessarily an expert on the internal threat. I think the people should be informed, but I raise the question that exists in my mind whether the military is the medium through which the people are informed. If they do not, I am not sure who does have the responsibility, but it is something that has its dangerous implications, in my opinion. I cite this. Again I am talking principle now, not the fact. I would like to have everybody that knows anything about the internal threat of communism preach it to the high heavens, but, as a matter of principle, I am dubious about the military having that mission. Now, suppose by some miracle communism disappeared from the face of the earth, and yet we had set the precedent of the military informing-I would say indoctrinating, educating the public against this particular subject. You have opened the door. Where do we go from there? Again, I am talking principle. Senator STENNIS. If I may comment there, counsel, as I understand it, General, you do not want to involve the military with all the implications that could enter into such practices. You want to keep the military profession more strictly military? General WHITE. I think you have said it for me. On the other hand, the matter of education of troops or informing the troops is a different matter. Senator STENNIS. Thank you. Senator Case? Senator CASE. If you will permit me to quote a sentence from General White's statement in Newsweek, which has been inserted in the record and which I think expresses concisely what he General WHITE. Incidentally, Senator, may I say I did write that myself. Senator CASE. With that preface, then, the closing paragraph carries this sentence: It seems to me that the central issue lies in the maintenance of a sound and historical fact that our Military Establishment is subordinate to the civil authority that it is an instrument of policy and not a formulator of public opinion. This appears fundamental to our whole system of government, and to preserve our way of life it must continue so. That was a considered statement, if you wrote it yourself. Senator STENNIS. All right, Mr. Kendall, proceed. Mr. KENDALL. On this particular question, General, do you believe that individual field commanders should be allowed some range of latitude of judgment to determine whether or not they will participate in these types of seminars; and, if so, the extent of their participation; or do you believe, on the other hand, if you are going to have the program, that it should be controlled from Washington? General WHITE. I would say this: If we are going to have the program, obviously, Washington cannot control everything in detail. They must set policies, both broad enough and narrow enough, to cover almost every contingency. Well, now, obviously as widespread as this country is and as big as the military is, there is room for error, honest error of judgment, and I am sure such things would occur regardless of the number of directives and policies that were put out. But I think the field commanders must have some latitude. TROOPS SHOULD HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF ENEMIES Mr. KENDALL. Would you express your opinions generally upon the necessity for a troop information program which includes indoctrination against communism and for Americanism, the dangers of General WHITE. I am inclined to think back to the origin of that. As far as I could get back was the oath of allegiance, the oath of office of an officer, which is interesting to me, the difference between that and the oath of enlistment. In part, an officer says: I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic. Well, the domestic is your basis for the officer understanding what the domestic threat might be. Now, you turn to the oath of enlistment. It is somewhat different, and I have not had the time nor the resources, perhaps, to study the history, why the difference, but the enlisted man says: I will bear true faith and allegiance to the United States of America, that I will serve them honestly and faithfully against all enemies whomsoever. Well, that perhaps encompasses the same thing, but certainly you cannot have the officers defending against one type of threat and the enlisted men against another. So I assume it means the same thing. In any case, I draw the conclusion from both those oaths that a knowledge of what the domstic enemies are, is a part and parcel of the oath, the knowledge that must be had in order to carry out the obligation taken by these oaths. Therefore, the internal education program is necessary. Mr. KENDALL. Do you believe enough is being done in this field at the present time? General WHITE. I think a lot is being done, and, as has appeared in the paper, I was asked to be a member of a committee which the Secretary of Defense has appointed to study this question, and I have not reached any conclusions. If I had, I think I ought to reserve them until I have an opportunity to discuss them with my committee fellow members. Mr. KENDALL. I agree with that, General. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. WHITE PREFERS PRIOR CLEARANCE TO PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY Senator STENNIS. General White, my questions at this time will be especially brief. You made a very impressive statement. There is a problem with reference to policy clearance of many speeches, and Many do have to be made. I had not realized how far this thing could go in reference to civilian employees, men that are not military, but who are part of the Government at the so-called higher levels, on the question of speeches being cleared for policy. This morning-and, parenthetically, I am certainly not calling on you to pass on another witness' testimony, especially your former fellow member of the Joint ChiefsAdmiral Burke gave an outline of two systems that could be used. One was to let the officer, particularly the senior officer, as he said, speak more or less at his peril, assuming, of course, he would be generally familiar with the policy; and the other, to avoid the hazards, is to have the prior clearance. He said that he thought one or the other was necessary; that either one could be made satisfactory. I judge from your testimony that you think prior clearance, properly administered, is preferable. General WHITE. I do. Senator STENNIS. Now, could you help us to get a clearer understanding and clearer concept of just what is required of officers in the first place and is required of these men that make the review in the second place? Stating it a little differently, the matter of what the national policy is that you are not to contradict or impair. Did you have sufficient information before you at the time that you were supervising the preparation of these speeches? Did you have a clear-cut definition, or outline of that policy, that would be a guidance for you and those who were helping you originally in the preparation of those speeches? General WHITE. I do not recall any compendium of policy. Senator STENNIS. Yes? General WHITE. My own impression is, it was a matter of doing it by ear. Senator STENNIS. Yes? General WHITE. I believe one has to be aware of what the President has said, what the Secretary of State has said, the Secretary of Defense. One should have a fairly keen sense of what is going on, what makes good sense, what is the policy of the Government. But that it was formalized, I think only in some cases, and that usually on an internal defense matter. Senator STENNIS. The next question is: What was the situation, so far as you know, with reference to the men who were passing on these speeches? How definite were the policy guidelines put before them? How thoroughly and completely did they coordinate their own effort? How much coordination was there among those of the Department of Defense who looked at those speeches and those of the Department of State who looked at those speeches? General WHITE. Anything I could say on that would be, you might say, hearsay. Senator ŠTENNIS. Yes? General WHITE. I do know that the Director of Public Information in the Air Force was in constant contact with the Assistant Secre |