personnel at every level must be fully cognizant of the menace of the cold war and of the threat of any political system which seeks to destroy our own. The alien philosophy of international communism threatens our freedom, our liberty, and our cherished traditions, beliefs, and heritage. The Communists seek to infiltrate every segment of our society. Americans should and must rally to the defense of our own way of life and stand firm in the face of insidious subversion and propaganda techniques and methods. We should do this, however, without frenzy or panic. J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the FBI, an implacable enemy of communism and our foremost authority on the activities of communism and methods we must use to defeat it, in accepting the Criss Award on December 7, 1961, said: We are at war with the Communists and the sooner every red-blooded American realizes this the safer we will be. Naturally, we want to live in peace, but we do not want peace at any price-we want peace with honor and integrity. And we intend to assure it for the future. The extent of the menace posed by the philosophy of communism is clear cut and obvious. However, it is absolutely necessary that we attack and oppose it calmly, rationally, and objectively. As we seek to meet the ever-multiplying challenges confronting our Nation today, let us double and treble our own efforts in teaching the positive principles of our own Government, not only to our men in uniform but to all citizens. Every citizen must be made to realize that he has a personal stake in our Government and its operation-individual freedom and liberty-that it can be lost-that our Government is not self-operating, but requires support and sacrifice. I believe that the best remedy against communism or any "ism" is a strong faith in our system of government, which insures personal liberty and individual freedom. We shall endeavor to develop the facts in this case on all matters and from the facts, and only from the facts, can sound conclusions come. Members of the subcommittee, in the long months of preparation for these hearings, many of you have had a chance to read the newspaper reports, the mail, the messages, and for my part I have never seen more compounded confusion regarding many angles of this investigation and the subject matter to be considered. Therefore, many weeks ago, as your chairman, I sought to find some guidelines from outstanding citizens who have traveled the road of duty and responsibility and experience. I had in mind men of judgment and experience that could furnish this subcommittee and the American people some guidelines in trying to think through some of these problems. EISENHOWER STATEMENT Senator Saltonstall and I went to Gettysburg to see former President Eisenhower and discussed with him the problems and the matters that were before and would possibly come before this subcommittee, and former President Eisenhower agreed to send us a memorandum. I think it is of the highest importance. It speaks for itself. Copies I am now going to read his statement. GETTYSBURG, PA., January 15, 1962. Hon. JOHN STENNIS, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am complimented by your invitation to comment on various matters of current interest to your subcommittee. Because I have had no occasion to examine these issues in detail since leaving the presidency, I shall direct my remarks to basic considerations rather than to the specifics of pending issues. This statement, therefore, will deal in general terms with the public need for information on the Communist threat; extremism; the military role in providing information on communism; slurs on the military; and censorship. I am sure that all of us would deplore any move which would restrict public access to reliable information on the deadliness, implacability, totality, and cunning of the Communist assault on freedom. We should not trouble ourselves over the possibility of overinforming the public. Rather we should be watchful of any tendency to withhold releasable information. Those of us who over the years have had to deal directly with the Communist leaders and system believe unanimously, I think-that the more our people can be brought to comprehend the all-encompassing nature of the threat, the stronger will be our own determination to preserve freedom at home, and the greater will be our national willingness to sacrifice to advance freedom throughout the world. Telling the stark truth about communism is the best way to make our own citizenry and other peoples appreciate the blessings of liberty. We should encourage all individuals who are well informed on Communist tactics and strategy to expound freely and often on this subject. We should concentrate on assuring ourselves that the public has ready access to the best available information, rather than expending too much energy on deciding which persons or groups should fill this need. One phase of this matter concerns me deeply-as it has for many years. I refer to the tendency to impugn motives when matters of this kind enter the public arena. Because the public is, rightly, troubled by the Communist menace, the subject tends to excite fear and suspicion and is susceptible always of being exploited for political or other purposes. Thus, extremism finds a fertile soil. And as charge begets countercharge, unless the Nation's leaders move with wisdom and restraint the fanatics of both the right and left so belabor each other as almost to monopolize the issue, leading the Nation to preoccupy itself with the evils of extremists instead of the evils of communism. Facts are forgotten in the extravagance of mutual accusation. Extremism always distorts-what we need is hard fact, calmly presented and digested, so that we may act with prudence and some wisdom in defending ourselves. Incidentally, I have noted that the fanatic thrives on publicity; he withers when ignored. Next, I take up the matter which, so you indicate to me, engages your particular interest—the appropriate military role in helping to inform the nonmilitary in respect to the tactics, strategy, and concepts of communism. First, I mention in passing that I endorse without qualification the doctrine of military subordination to civil authority. The armed services are not policymaking bodies. Their function is faithfully to execute the policy decisions of the properly constituted agencies of civil government. It is equally true, however, that, in this modern day, the need of civil government for the counsel and advice of military personnel in devising of policies grows more acute. I subscribe also to the position expressed to your subcommitee last fall by the Secretary of Defense, that military involvement in the providing of information concerning Communist potential aggression-indeed its involvement in all matters must be clearly nonpartisan, directed to subjects related to the defense of America, and in harmony with approved national policies. This is, of course, easily said. But difficulties are inescapable when one attempts to decide what type of statement or gathering is partisan and what isn't-what, conceivably, in these times is unrelated to the Nation's strength and safety-and what, precisely, national policy really is. Such determinations are necessarily, in good measure, subjective. I suspect that many active duty personnel could conclude from such broad guidelines that virtually any utterance before a nonmilitary group might be construed as a violation of instructions of higher authority; hence, the course of prudence would be to say nothing It is, of course, not the function of the military services to ferret out the details of attempted Communist subversion in our Nation. This is the task of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, under Mr. J. Edgar Hoover. However, by virtue of its vital mission to defend our country, its long professional experience with Communist tactics and its highly developed educational system, our military is singularly well trained to provide to the public, as well as to the members of the Armed Forces, the implications of the extreme threat of Communist imperialism. Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, if your committee should glance over the curriculums of the National War College and, indeed, of all the service war colleges, you will find, I believe, that the aims, objectives, and methods of communism and its aggressive threats to our system are probed more intensively and more pragmatically in these institutions than in virtually any cilivian university in the Nation. This has long been true. The Armed Forces Industrial College, for instance, began conducting very fruitful national security seminars on matters of this kind as long ago as 1948. I believe these seminars are still in progress. The result is that senior officers in the Armed Forces are qualified to develop among their units the necessary understanding concerning potential aggressors, and their purposes and tactics. As an example of this kind of education: In the summer of 1959, the Joint Chiefs of Staff authorized a 2-day strategy seminar of 210 selected reservists. The War College Seminar presented 55 top experts as lecturers. This "faculty" was strictly bipartisan-including former Secretary of State Dean Acheson and other prominent Democrats, as well as Republicans. Some of the speakers were openly critical of various policies and programs of my administration. But I thought it unwise to suppress or inhibit such discussions since I believe that the American people have a right and a need to know the alternate ways of meeting the Communist challenge. As an indication of the caliber of students, three "alumni" of the first seminar are now U.S. Senators. Others were college presidents, deans, editors, publishers, Congressmen, Governors, lawyers, college and high school teachers, and businessmen. I believe that all concerned found the discussions highly provocative and useful, and that there is value in such efforts for the Nation as a whole. The need for anti-Communist education in the Armed Forces is self-evident. Your committee recalls, I am sure, our sad experiences in Korea a decade ago, in respect to the conduct of some of our captured Americans. This gave rise to improved troop information programs designed to strengthen troop appreciation of the fundamentals of our own and the Soviet system. I need not remind your committee, especially, that in these times military considerations and economic, political, and ideological considerations are interrelated to such a degree as to make an arbitrary dividing line between the military and the nonmilitary increasingly unrealistic-a truth, indeed, which gave rise 15 years ago to the establishment by law of the National Security Council. Here, in the Nation's topmost planning group, the military, through the Secretary of Defense (and, by invitation, the Chairman and/or members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) directly advise in the development of America's master policies. These advisers, and their supporting staffs, are an asset of incalculable value to this Nation, and policies governing their usefulness and employment should leave a great deal of latitude to the judgment and responsibility of these men. As to informing the public at large, I have heard statements to the effect that the use of the military in this effort stems from a National Security Council directive of 1958. This, I believe, is in error. It is true that during my Presidency great pains were taken to coordinate the efforts of the military services in its preparations for countering hostile moves against the external threat, on the one hand, and those of the Federal Bureau of Investigation concerned in combating internal Communist subversion on the other. But, to the best of my recollection, there is no national security document specifically directing military involvement in the internal problem, and unless material has been taken out of context, or general language interpreted very loosely, I think there is no basis for these assertions involving the National Security Council. Nevertheless, both procedures-the troop education programs and the general educational program-seem to me as desirable for our country now as they did just a few years back. Each supplements and supports the other-Defense personnel takes the lead in the first, civilian agencies do so in the second. Naturally, when civilians or soldiers undertake programs of this kind, within at all times and at all places. Faulty techniques, error of judgment, impulsive statements, occasional excesses-these are bound to occur. As always in cases of inescapable overlappings of responsibility, the heads of affected agencies must apply judgment-a rule of reason. Such responsible heads can expect to receive the full cooperation of the military leadership in seeing to it that policies are obeyed and flaws are corrected. Accordingly, should departmental instructions be so phrased as unduly to prohibit desirable military participation in these educational efforts respecting the Communist menace, I suggest that your committee recommend their restudy with a view to appropriate revision. The Reds are well aware of the integrity, patriotic motives, and high qualifications of our military. I suspect they would be delighted if we should prevent such people from spreading the truth about Communist imperialism. Pertaining at least indirectly to this subject, I have heard of accusations alleging that military education is so narrow as to make service personnel incapable of grasping the whole complex of dangers confronting our country. It is hinted that the entire officer corps has become politically infected, and prone to be disloyal to the Commander in Chief. I, for one, want to be on record as expressing my indestructible faith and pride in our armed services-even though their loyalty, patriotism, and breadth of understanding need no defense from me or anyone else. The entire Nation, including the armed services, insists that in our free system military influence must be kept within proper constitutional, legal, and administrative bounds. Moreover, as mentioned in my final address as President, we must watchfully mind the military-industrial complex, for it tends to generate powerful economic and political pressures beyond the anticipations even of the participants themselves. But these are matters of proportion and sensible national leadership, requiring the same kind of continuing oversight and perspective that other major power groupings in our society, including business, labor, and government itself, require in the interest of keeping our system flexible, balanced, and free. In a half century of national service, I have yet to meet the American military officer who viewed himself as a budding Napoleon, or even a Rasputin, and I suggest it is worthy of note that in recent world history the three major dictators-Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin came from civil life. This fact does not warrant a general indictment of civilian motivation any more than one or two military extremists might warrant the absurdity that all the military harbors political designs dangerous to our constitutional form of government. I believe, therefore, that your committee will render valuable service by rejecting the recent spate of attacks upon the competence and loyalty of the military and by disapproving any effort to thrust them, so to speak, behind an American iron curtain, ordered to stand mutely by as hostile forces tirelessly strive to undermine every aspect of American life. I say, let our informed military speak, always under properly established policies and the general-not petty-supervision of their civilian superiors. Should they, here or there, speak or act partisanly, imprudently, or in contravention of national policies, then hold them directly accountable, for it is a function of command to keep military personnel properly respectful of the obligations of the uniform. At all events, I am certain of this: Give military leaders a lucid explanation of the Nation's policies, and they will, with rare and easily controllable exceptions, loyally perform. Generally in the same connection, I question the desirability of requiring the topmost Government officials, whether military or civilian, to submit their proposed public statements for what amounts to censorship of content-as distinguished from security matters-prior to their utterance. I am aware, in saying this, that procedures in my own and in the administration of my predecessor may have functioned in this way. But in thoughtful reassessment of this procedure, I incline to the view that when responsible and respected officials feel compelled to submit to censorship, we are smothering the concept of personal responsibility under a practice of heavy-handed and unjustified staff supervision. Responsible officials, when in doubt, will voluntarily "coordinate” proposed public statements within their own and sister departments so as to protect the Nation, their services, and themselves, but such voluntary coordination is some distance from censorship. I would hope that all who study this problem objectively will see the virtues of such a "cooperative" system as opposed to censorship, except, of course, where security is involved. I have always believed— It is, of course, not the function of the military services to ferret out the details of attempted Communist subversion in our Nation. This is the task of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, under Mr. J. Edgar Hoover. However, by virtue of its vital mission to defend our country, its long professional experience with Communist tactics and its highly developed educational system, our military is singularly well trained to provide to the public, as well as to the members of the Armed Forces, the implications of the extreme threat of Communist imperialism. Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, if your committee should glance over the curriculums of the National War College and, indeed, of all the service war colleges, you will find, I believe, that the aims, objectives, and methods of communism and its aggressive threats to our system are probed more intensively and more pragmatically in these institutions than in virtually any cilivian university in the Nation. This has long been true. The Armed Forces Industrial College, for instance, began conducting very fruitful national security seminars on matters of this kind as long ago as 1948. I believe these seminars are still in progress. The result is that senior officers in the Armed Forces are qualified to develop among their units the necessary understanding concerning potential aggressors, and their purposes and tactics. As an example of this kind of education: In the summer of 1959, the Joint Chiefs of Staff authorized a 2-day strategy seminar of 210 selected reservists. The War College Seminar presented 55 top experts as lecturers. This "faculty" was strictly bipartisan-including former Secretary of State Dean Acheson and other prominent Democrats, as well as Republicans. Some of the speakers were openly critical of various policies and programs of my administration. But I thought it unwise to suppress or inhibit such discussions since I believe that the American people have a right and a need to know the alternate ways of meeting the Communist challenge. As an indication of the caliber of students, three "alumni" of the first seminar are now U.S. Senators. Others were college presidents, deans, editors, publishers, Congressmen, Governors, lawyers, college and high school teachers, and businessmen. I believe that all concerned found the discussions highly provocative and useful, and that there is value in such efforts for the Nation as a whole. The need for anti-Communist education in the Armed Forces is self-evident. Your committee recalls, I am sure, our sad experiences in Korea a decade ago, in respect to the conduct of some of our captured Americans. This gave rise to improved troop information programs designed to strengthen troop appreciation of the fundamentals of our own and the Soviet system. I need not remind your committee, especially, that in these times military considerations and economic, political, and ideological considerations are interrelated to such a degree as to make an arbitrary dividing line between the military and the nonmilitary increasingly unrealistic-a truth, indeed, which gave rise 15 years ago to the establishment by law of the National Security Council. Here, in the Nation's topmost planning group, the military, through the Secretary of Defense (and, by invitation, the Chairman and/or members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) directly advise in the development of America's master policies. These advisers, and their supporting staffs, are an asset of incalculable value to this Nation, and policies governing their usefulness and employment should leave a great deal of latitude to the judgment and responsibility of these men. As to informing the public at large, I have heard statements to the effect that the use of the military in this effort stems from a National Security Council directive of 1958. This, I believe, is in error. It is true that during my Presidency great pains were taken to coordinate the efforts of the military services in its preparations for countering hostile moves against the external threat, on the one hand, and those of the Federal Bureau of Investigation concerned in combating internal Communist subversion on the other. But, to the best of my recollection, there is no national security document specifically directing military involvement in the internal problem, and unless material has been taken out of context, or general language interpreted very loosely, I think there is no basis for these assertions involving the National Security Council. Nevertheless, both procedures-the troop education programs and the general educational program-seem to me as desirable for our country now as they did just a few years back. Each supplements and supports the other-Defense personnel takes the lead in the first, civilian agencies do so in the second. Naturally, when civilians or soldiers undertake programs of this kind, within |