Mr. KATZENBACH. Yes, sir. There were orientation officers. I don't know whether they operated in teams or not. Mr. KENDALL. But you do know that they operated directly with the troops. Mr. KATZENBACH. Yes, sir. Mr. KENDALL. Do you know what the result of that experience was? Mr. KATZENBACH. Yes, sir, I do know something about it. It seemed to me that during the war the things that I read-I never saw them, incidentally, myself-but the things that I have read seem to me to indicate that the I. & E. officer during the Second World War did a very good job. I think that where the real problem came was immediately after, and it was then I think that I. & E. hours got a bad reputation in the services, causing them to be virtually abolished, indeed. Apparently what happened was that not very much attention was paid to I. & E. There was very little command interest in it. And the result was that you got the performance you would expect, poor. Mr. KENDALL. I wonder if you would check this point and give us an insert for the record as to how they were used during World War II, what the purpose was and what the general and overall results were. Mr. KATZENBACH. Yes, sir. (The information requested is as follows:) We are informed that there is no record available of I. & E. personnel operating as teams during World War II. Mr. KENDALL. Wouldn't the use of teams of this type be in direct conflict with the concept that troop information is essentially a command operation? Mr. KATZENBACH. Yes, sir. That is what I said this morning. But the question is whether or not we could use such teams to train people at bases or not. In other words, to do sort of the same thing we do with a new weapons system. VARIANCES IN CODE OF CONDUCT TRAINING Mr. KENDALL. Now, with reference to the code of conduct, of course, there was no thinking that the code of conduct itself would work any miracles. Mr. KATZENBACH. No, sir. Mr. KENDALL. In other words, it was the thinking all the way through that the code would have to be accompanied by a new and vigorous training program directed to resistance against interrogation, evasion and escape, and similar matters. Mr. KATZENBACH. Yes, sir. It had to be accurate. Mr. KENDALL. And has that program substantially materialized except possibly in the Air Force? Mr. KATZENBACH. Oh, yes, sir. Mr. KENDALL. Either one can answer this question. Mr. RUNGE. Mr. Kendall, as I indicated this morning, all of the services do have training programs, training efforts, in support of the code of conduct and related elements. And I should say, and if I gave the impression this morning that the Air Force did not empha SUBSEQUENT AIR FORCE ACTION On the basis of the facts disclosed by the investigation, the commander, Continental Air Command, concluded that Major Cooper had willfully failed to obey an official Air Force directive and that Lt. Col. Holbein was derelict in his duty in failing to exercise proper command supervision. The Commander, Continental Air Command, gave each of these officers an administrative reprimand, and both officers were relieved from their duties at the Center. The actions taken against Lt. Col. Holbein and Major Cooper were prompted by the understandable need to maintain good order and discipline. The reprimands, administrative in nature, were removed from the officers' official records, as required by Air Force regulations, at the time these officers were transferred. Major Cooper was reassigned to the Air Force Systems Command on September 11, 1961, and is currently Chief, Requirements Branch, Headquarters 6594th Test Wing (Satellite). Lt. Col. Holbein was retired on July 31, 1961, having been selected for retirement on January 18, 1961, several months before the unauthorized showing of the film. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The Air Force instruction limiting the use of the film was based on a memorandum to the Secretaries of the military departments issued on March 10, 1961, by Mr. Gilpatric, the Deputy Secretary of Defense. This memorandum reaffirmed a decision made in 1960 and stated that the film "Operation Abolition" was to be "retained in the film libraries on an on-call basis for those requesting to view it, but will not be prescribed in the training of personnel." Collateral training meeting are officially prescribed by Air Force directives. Collateral training is defined in Air Force Regulation 50-11 as "training in standard subjects; such as military training, physical training, security training, weapons training, and recognition training ***." Paragraph 5c of that regulation requires the Commander, Continental Air Command, to “provide a standardized collateral training program which will maintain the military proficiency of reserve personnel." A CONAC regulation (CONAC Supplement No. 1 to Unit Training Standard No. 5-1) sets forth in some detail the general subject matter to be covered in collateral training programs. This regulation requires the commander of an Air Force Reserve Center to develop, within the guidelines set forth, a specific collateral training program and to schedule such training for his unit. Although a Reserve cannot be forced to attend collateral training sessions, many Reserves must attend such sessions to maintain their Reserve status and to obtain sufficient point credit for retirement purposes. Collateral training is performed in the person's capacity as a Reserve and with a view toward enhancing his mobilization potential. Each training session must be authorized by competent military authority before the training begins, and is controlled by the military. The collateral training session held at the Center on April 17, 1961, was attended by approximately 40 reserves who, with the exception of one or two who had just joined, were in uniform. The Reserves received points for attendance. In determining whether the Air Force instruction on "Operation Abolition" was violated, it is of little consequence that some of the Reserves who attended these meetings had requested, weeks before this instruction was issued, that the film be shown. The point is that the film was shown during training hours at prescribed training meetings, and it was this type of showing that the instruction prohibited. The term, "voluntary viewing," in light of the language of the first part of the instruction, can only have reference to a showing of the film at informal, casual get-togethers of military personnel, not during officially prescribed training sessions or training hours. DOD REPORTS 227 PERSONNEL APPREHENDED BY COMMUNISTS SINCE 1954 Mr. KENDALL. Also, Mr. Chairman, I have here a letter dated today in response to a letter which I wrote on January 8, 1962, to Mr. Vance, concerning Department of Defense personnel apprehended by Communist forces. This matter again was referred to this morning the DOD personnel captured, abducted, or otherwise apprehended by Sino-Soviet forces since 1954 are as follows: Department of the Army, 207; 171 returned to Army control; 29 still missing, presumed under Sino-Soviet control; 7 reported as deceased, not returned. Department of the Navy, none. Department of the Air Force, 20, all returned to Air Force control. I might say that the Department of Defense made it plain to me in oral and telephone conversations that the only information which they have about those persons captured by Sino-Soviet forces was with reference to Department of Defense personnel. Again, I would like to offer this for the record, Mr. Chairman. Senator STENNIS. Very well. This letter will be admitted into the record at this point. (The letter referred to is as follows:) GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, Washington, D.C., March 8, 1962. Mr. JAMES T. KENDALL, Chief Counsel, Preparedness Investigating Subcommittee, Senate Office Building. DEAR MR. KENDALL: I have received the following information from the Defense Intelligence Agency, in response to your letter of January 8, 1962, concerning Department of Defense personnel apprehended by Communist forces: "The information requested in your memorandum of 24 January 1962 concerning DOD personnel captured, abducted, or otherwise apprehended by SinoSoviet forces or irregular Communist agencies since 1954 is as follows: "Department of the Army_--_. 171 returned to Army control; 29 still missing, presumed under SinoSoviet control; 7 reported as deceased, not returned. Department of the Navy‒‒‒ Department of the Air Force___ 207 20 All returned to Air Force control. Total-- Sincerely, 227" CYRUS R. VANCE. Senator THURMOND. Mr. Chairman, will counsel yield? Senator THURMOND. Might I have the statement right there? Senator STENNIS. We will pass this around before it goes to the reporter. DOD REPORT EXCLUDES PERSONNEL MISSING IN ACTION IN KOREAN WAR Senator THURMOND. In a pamphlet entitled "POW, the Fight Continues After the Battle"-it is a report of the Secretary of Defense dated August 1955-on page 29 is this statement which I would like to read: The committee believes that the Communists should be held strictly accountable for the 470 men still missing in action. Information indicates that they were at one time or another in Communist hands. Mr. Chairman, it would indicate that the letter from the General Counsel of the Department of Defense dated March 8, 1962, referring to 227 would be in addition to the 470 that were missing as set out here SUBSEQUENT AIR FORCE ACTION On the basis of the facts disclosed by the investigation, the commander, Continental Air Command, concluded that Major Cooper had willfully failed to obey an official Air Force directive and that Lt. Col. Holbein was derelict in his duty in failing to exercise proper command supervision. The Commander, Continental Air Command, gave each of these officers an administrative reprimand, and both officers were relieved from their duties at the Center. The actions taken against Lt. Col. Holbein and Major Cooper were prompted by the understandable need to maintain good order and discipline. The reprimands, administrative in nature, were removed from the officers' official records, as required by Air Force regulations, at the time these officers were transferred. Major Cooper was reassigned to the Air Force Systems Command on September 11, 1961, and is currently Chief, Requirements Branch, Headquarters 6594th Test Wing (Satellite). Lt. Col. Holbein was retired on July 31, 1961, having been selected for retirement on January 18, 1961, several months before the unauthorized showing of the film. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The Air Force instruction limiting the use of the film was based on a memorandum to the Secretaries of the military departments issued on March 10, 1961, by Mr. Gilpatric, the Deputy Secretary of Defense. This memorandum reaffirmed a decision made in 1960 and stated that the film "Operation Abolition" was to be "retained in the film libraries on an on-call basis for those requesting to view it, but will not be prescribed in the training of personnel." Collateral training meeting are officially prescribed by Air Force directives. Collateral training is defined in Air Force Regulation 50-11 as "training in standard subjects; such as military training, physical training, security training, weapons training, and recognition training ***." Paragraph 5c of that regulation requires the Commander, Continental Air Command, to "provide a standardized collateral training program which will maintain the military proficiency of reserve personnel." A CONAC regulation (CONAC Supplement No. 1 to Unit Training Standard No. 5-1) sets forth in some detail the general subject matter to be covered in collateral training programs. This regulation requires the commander of an Air Force Reserve Center to develop, within the guidelines set forth, a specific collateral training program and to schedule such training for his unit. Although a Reserve cannot be forced to attend collateral training sessions, many Reserves must attend such sessions to maintain their Reserve status and to obtain sufficient point credit for retirement purposes. Collateral training is performed in the person's capacity as a Reserve and with a view toward enhancing his mobilization potential. Each training session must be authorized by competent military authority before the training begins, and is controlled by the military. The collateral training session held at the Center on April 17, 1961, was attended by approximately 40 reserves who, with the exception of one or two who had just joined, were in uniform. The Reserves received points for attendance. In determining whether the Air Force instruction on “Operation Abolition" was violated, it is of little consequence that some of the Reserves who attended these meetings had requested, weeks before this instruction was issued, that the film be shown. The point is that the film was shown during training hours at prescribed training meetings, and it was this type of showing that the instruction prohibited. The term, "voluntary viewing," in light of the language of the first part of the instruction, can only have reference to a showing of the film at informal, casual get-togethers of military personnel, not during officially prescribed training sessions or training hours. DOD REPORTS 227 PERSONNEL APPREHENDED BY COMMUNISTS SINCE 1954 Mr. KENDALL. Also, Mr. Chairman, I have here a letter dated today in response to a letter which I wrote on January 8, 1962, to Mr. Vance, concerning Department of Defense personnel apprehended by Communist forces. This matter again was referred to this morning the DOD personnel captured, abducted, or otherwise apprehended by Sino-Soviet forces since 1954 are as follows: Department of the Army, 207; 171 returned to Army control; 29 still missing, presumed under Sino-Soviet control; 7 reported as deceased, not returned. Department of the Navy, none. Department of the Air Force, 20, all returned to Air Force control. I might say that the Department of Defense made it plain to me in oral and telephone conversations that the only information which they have about those persons captured by Sino-Soviet forces was with reference to Department of Defense personnel. Again, I would like to offer this for the record, Mr. Chairman. Senator STENNIS. Very well. This letter will be admitted into the record at this point. (The letter referred to is as follows:) GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, Washington, D.C., March 8, 1962. Mr. JAMES T. KENDALL, Chief Counsel, Preparedness Investigating Subcommittee, Senate Office Building. DEAR MR. KENDALL: I have received the following information from the Defense Intelligence Agency, in response to your letter of January 8, 1962, concerning Department of Defense personnel apprehended by Communist forces: "The information requested in your memorandum of 24 January 1962 concerning DOD personnel captured, abducted, or otherwise apprehended by SinoSoviet forces or irregular Communist agencies since 1954 is as follows: "Department of the Army_. 171 returned to Army control; 29 still missing, presumed under SinoSoviet control; 7 reported as deceased, not returned. Department of the Navy‒‒‒‒ Department of the Air Force__. All returned to Air Force control. Total_____ Sincerely, 207 0 20 227" CYRUS R. VANCE. Senator THURMOND. Mr. Chairman, will counsel yield? Senator THURMOND. Might I have the statement right there? Senator STENNIS. We will pass this around before it goes to the reporter. DOD REPORT EXCLUDES PERSONNEL MISSING IN ACTION IN KOREAN WAR Senator THURMOND. In a pamphlet entitled "POW, the Fight Continues After the Battle"-it is a report of the Secretary of Defense dated August 1955-on page 29 is this statement which I would like to read: The committee believes that the Communists should be held strictly accountable for the 470 men still missing in action. Information indicates that they were at one time or another in Communist hands. Mr. Chairman, it would indicate that the letter from the General Counsel of the Department of Defense dated March 8, 1962, referring to 227 would be in addition to the 470 that were missing as set out here |