(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "State Department information program, Voice of America : hearings before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Government Operations, United States Senate, Eighty-third Congress, first session, pursuant to S. Res. 40, a resolution authorizing the Committee on Government Operations to employ temporary additional personnel and increasing the limit of expenditures"

^l 



rF 



cA'9 



^ q. ^.^^. ^^^'^i c2l 



4*^ 




- K^ 



Given By 
B. S. SUPT. OF DCCU1i!ENTS 



,TATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM- 
VOICE OF AMERICA 



HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

-^ — PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON 
INVESTIGATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON 

GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

EIGHTY-THIED CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 
PURSUANT TO 



Jd- 



S. Res. 40 



A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COMMITTEE ON 

GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS TO EMPLOY TEMPORARY 

ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL AND INCREASING THE 

LIMIT OF EXPENDITURES 



PART 3 



FEBRUARY 20 AND 28, 1953 



Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Operations 




UNITED STATES 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1953 



Boston Public Library 
Superintendent of Documents 

JUN 1-1953 

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS 
JOSEPH R. McCarthy, Wisconsin, Chairman 
KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota JOHN L. McCLBLLAN, Arkansas 

MARGARET CHASE SMITH, Maine CLYDE R. HOEY, North Carolina 

HENRY C. DWORSHAK, Idaho HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, Minnesota 

EVERETT Mckinley DIRKSEN, Illinois HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington 
JOHN MARSHALL BUTLER, Maryland JOHN F. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

CHARLES E. POTTER, Michigan STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri 

Walter L. Reynolds, Chief Clerk 



Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations 
JOSEPH R. MCCARTHY, Wisconsin, Chairman 
KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas 

EVERETT MCKINLEY DIRKSEN, Illinois HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington 
CHARLES E. POTTER, Michigan STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri 

Roy M. Cohn, Chief Counsel 
Francis D. Flanagan, General Counsel and Staff Director 



CONTENTS 



Page 

Appendix 222 

Index I 

Testimony of — 

Dooher, Gerald F. P., Acting Chief, Near East, South Asia, and 

African Division, Voice of America 190 

Fulling, Virgil H., Chief, Latin American News Service, Voice of 

America 151 

Glazer, Sidney, Chief, Hebrew Service, Voice of America 190 

Horneffer, Michael D., French Unit, Audience Mail, Voice of America. 177 

Lenkeith, Dr. Nancy 164 

Thompson, James H., Facilities Manager, Voice of America 212 

SCHEDULE OF EXHIBITS 

Introduced Appears 
on page on page 

8. News dispatches from Latin-America News Service, Voice 

of America, January 21, 1953 158 (•) 

9. Memorandum from John W. Ford, Ofhce of Security, Depart- 

ment of State to "all employees," February 18, 1953 163 222 

10. Copy of Sidney Hook's book review on Whittaker Chambers' 

Witness, New York Times, May 25, 1952 . 172 (i) 

11. Copy of Lincoln's Day script, Voice of America 175 (■) 

12. Copy of script on Whittaker Chambers' articles in Saturday 

Evening Post, February 16, 1952 176 0) 

13. Excerpt from testimony of February 14, 1953, Senate Per- 

manent Subcommittee on Investigations 177 224 

14. Bureau of Standards report, February 26, 1953 188 224 

15. Copy of cable from American Embassy in Tel-Aviv to Dr. 

Sidney Glazer, Chief, Hebrew Service, Voice of America. _ 192 (') 

16. Directive issued from Reed Harris, United States Interna- 

tional Information Administration to Gerald P. Dooher, 
Acting Chief, Near East, South Asia, and African Division, 
Voice of America ^^ 194 (') 



' May be found in the files of the subcommittee. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM— VOICE 
OF AMERICA 



FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1953 

Senate Permanent Sitbcommittee on Investigations 

OF the Committee on Government Operations, 

Washington^ D. C, 

The subcommittee met at 10 : 30 a. m., pursuant to Senate Kesolu- 
tion 40, agreed to January 30, 1953, in room 357 of the Senate Office 
Building, Senator Joseph K. McCarthy, chairman, presiding. 

Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Eepublican, Wisconsin; 
Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota ; Senator Everett 
M. Dirksen, Republican, Illinois; Senator John L. McClellan, Demo- 
crat, Arkansas; Senator Henry M. Jackson, Democrat, Washington; 
and Senator Stuart Symington, Democrat, Missouri. 

Present also: Roy Cohn, chief counsel; Donald Surine, assistant 
counsel ; David Schine, chief consultant; and Ruth Young Watt, chief 
clerk. 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

Who will be the first witness, Mr. Counsel ? 

Mr. Cohn. Virgil Fulling. 

The Chairman. Mr. Fulling? Will you raise your right hand, 
please ? In this matter now in hearing before the committee, do you 
solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Fulling. I do. 

Mr. Cohn. Wliat is your full name, please ? 

TESTIMONY OF VIEGIL H. FULLING, CHIEF, LATIN-AMERICAN 
NEWS SERVICE, VOICE OF AMERICA 

Mr. Fulling. Virgil H. Fulling. 

Mr. Cohn. F-u-1-l-i-n-g? 

Mr. Fulling. F-u-1-l-i-n-g; yes, sir. 

Mr. Cohn. Are you currently employed at the Voice of America, 
Mr. Fulling? 

Mr. Fulling. I am, sir. 

Mr. Cohn. In what capacity? 

Mr. Fulling. I am the Chief of the Latin- American News Service. 

Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time have you held that 
position ? 

Mr. Fulling. I have held that position for approximately, I would 
say, 2 or 2i^ years. 

Mr. Cohn. And how long have you been with the Voice of America ? 

Mr. Fulling. 
lieve, 1947; 1946 or 1947. 

151 



152 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Mr. CoHN. All right. Now, during the period of time in which 
you have held your present post with the Voice of America, would 
you tell us what your duties have been, and what they are now ? 

Mr. Fulling. My duties are to handle news which we receive from 
the various wire services, the various news services, from our Wash- 
ington correspondents, and other services, and to process that news — 
by "process" I mean writing it or having it written — for use on our 
radio broadcasts to Latin America. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, in the course of your service as head of this divi- 
sion, the Latin- American News Service, have you encountered any 
attempts to water down anti-Communist references in news dis- 
patches ? 

Mr. Fulling, I have. 

Mr. CoHN. Has that occurred on more than one occasion? 

Mr. Fui LING. That has occurred on more than one occasion. 

Mr. CoHN. Have you made complaint to your superiors at the 
Voice of America about this? 

Mr. FuLUNG. I have. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, I would like to tell the committee about a specific 
example of this, Mr. Fulling. And for that purpose. I want to direct 
your attention to the day following General Eisenhower's inaugura- 
tion, namely, January 21, 1953. Do you recall that day? 

Mr. Fulling. I do, sir. 

Mr. CoHN. And did you receive any dispatches from news services 
in Latin- American countries concerning the Eisenhower inaugura- 
tion? 

Mr. Fulling. Yes, sir. We received numerous dispatches from 
Latin- American countries, in which they showed their happiness at the 
inauguration of General Eisenhower, in which they showed their 
friendship for the American people and for the United States, as 
expressed by their congratulations and everything on the inaugura- 
tion of President Eisenhower. 

Mr. CoHN. Did one of these dispatches in particular come from the 
country of Guatemala? 

Mr. Fulling, Yes, sir. 

Mr. CoHN. Would you tell us about that one ? 

First of all, from what news agency did that dispatch come? 

Mr. Fulling, As I recall, that was from the news agency. Inter- 
national News Service, 

Mr. CoHN. From INS; is that right? 

Mr. Fulling. From INS. 

Mr. CoHN. And what was the nature of that news dispatch? 

Mr. Fulling. The nature of that dispatch was that in Guatemala 
City, anti-Communists had organized a spontaneous demonstration 
in which they had gone to the United States Embassy in Guatemala 
City and paraded in front of it to show, or to demonstrate, their unity 
with the United States and their expressions of, I will say, gratifica- 
tion at the inauguration of President Eisenhower. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, you say anti-Communist elements. Did the news 
dispatch from INS specifically say that these were anti-Communist 
elements ? 

Mr. Fulling. That is correct, sir. They did say so. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 153 

Mr. CoHN. Now, did you take that news dispatch and embody it 
into a script to go out over the Voice of America, to Latin- American 
Republics, so that they would all be advised of this anti-Communist 
demonstration in favor of the United States and General Eisenhower ? 

Mr. Fulling. Yes, sir. That particular story was incorporated into 
a rather general roundup, including stories from other countries in 
Latin America, where they had also expressed their solidarity with 
the United States and their, I would say, gratification, or their con- 
gratulations, on General Eisenhower's inauguration. And we had 
decided at a meeting about 3 o'clock in the afternoon of the day that 
these dispatches came in that this Guatemala dispatch, because it 
showed such a spontaneous demonstration, showed the sincere friend- 
ship of the anti-Communists there for the United States and for the 
people of the United States. It showed that they were with us. 

Senator Mundt. You use the pronoun "we." Who do you mean 
participated in that meeting? Was it a staff meeting, a meeting of 
high echelon people? Or do you mean you, yourself, decided it? 

Mr. Fulling. It was at this policy meeting. I was coming to that, 
Senator. 

This meeting was presided over by Stephen Baldanza, who is the 
head of the Latin American Division of the Voice of America. In 
other words, we write the news in our section. We send it to his 
Division, and it is translated into Spanish and into Portuguese, and 
his Division transmits it over the air. 

Senator Mundt. He is in charge of the Division in which you work ? 

Mr. Fulling. No. No, sir. I work for the News Division. 

Mr. CoHN. You work for the Latin American News Division; is 
that correct ? 

Mr. Fulling. That is correct. We handle the news, which is a 

gart of all of the programs that go to Latin America, which Mr. 
tephen Baldanza handles. 

Mr. CoHN. You are concerned with the same area as Mr. Baldanza? 

Mr. Fulling. Yes, sir; we were concerned with the same area. 
That is why we were in this policy meeting together, coordinating 
our policies. 

Mr. Cohn. Now, did you take this dispatch of INS and prepare a 
news broadcast on the basis of it, pointing out that these anti-Com- 
munist elements in Guatemala had demonstrated in favor of General 
Eisenhower and the United States following the inauguration? 

Mr. Fulling. Yes, sir. We prepared such a news dispatch. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, in that news dispatch, did you use the term "anti- 
Communist" specifically ? 

Mr. Fulling. Yes, sir; we used the term "anti-Communist," as I 
recall, on two specific occasions. 

Mr. CoHN. And your basis for that was, of course, as you told us, 
that the news dispatch from INS had specifically used the words 
"anti-Communist" and made it clear that those who were doing the 
demonstrating were anti-Communists ? 

Mr. Fulling. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Cohn. It was an anti-Communist demonstration ? 

Mr. Fulling. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CoHN. And you took those words and put them in the news 
broadcast to go out to Latin America over the Voice of America ; is 
that right? 



154 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Mr. Fulling. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. CoHN. And after you had prepared that news dispatch, using 
the term "anti-Communist," as you say, in two instances, did anything 
happen to it ? 

Mr. Fulling. Yes, sir. After the news dispatch was prepared, I — 
I wrote it myself, incidentally — after the news dispatch was prepared, 
it was sent to what we call the central desk of the Voice of America, 
or the central news desk of the Voice of America. And the copy from 
the various areas — may I explain just a bit on the operations of the 
Voice in the particular instance ? 

Mr. CoHN. Very briefly. 

Mr. Fulling. Yes, sir. We have four general areas within the 
news section of the Voice of America. We have the Latin American 
News Services; we have the European News Services; we have the 
Far East News Services; and we have the Middle East News Serv- 
ices. Each area has one man who is in charge of it, who is the chief 
of that area. 

News copy is prepared in these areas, but it is ordered that it all 
be channeled through a central news desk. 

In this instance, this was done. The story was written and was 
placed with the central news desk. 

Mr. CoiiN. Now, this is a story containing these two specific refer- 
ences to the fact that this was an anti- Communist demonstration; is 
that correct? 

Mr. Fulling. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, what happened when the dispatch got up to your 
superiors ? 

Mr. Fulling. After the dispatch was placed on the central desk, I 
heard no more about it for, I would say, possibly an hour or so. And 
then the supervisor of the central desk told me that this dispatch had 
been changed. I immediately asked in what way it had been changed, 
and he showed me where changes had been made. 

Mr. CoHN. And where had these changes been made? Had any- 
thing been crossed out of the script ? 

Mr. Fulling. Yes, sir. Where the term "anti-Communist" had 
been used, that was crossed out. 

Mr. CoHN. In both instances? 

Mr. Fulling. In both instances. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, by what words was the term "anti-Communist" 
replaced in each instance ? 

Mr. Fulling. In the first instance, where it was called "anti-Com- 
munist organizations," the term was replaced by "citizens." 

Mr. CoHN. The word "anti-Communist" was deleted ? 

Mr. Fulling. And replaced by "citizens." 

Mr. CoHN. How about in the second instance ? 

Mr. Fulling. In the second instance, the word "anti-Communist" 
was replaced by the word "democratic." 

Mr. CoiiN. And do you have before you the original script which 
you prepared, which actually shows these pencil deletions ? 

Mr. Fulling. Yes, sir, I have before me now the original script 
which shows the penciled deletions. 

Mr. CoHN. Is there attached to that also, sir, the INS dispatch on 
which you based this news broadcast ? 

Mr. Fulling. Yes, sir, the INS dispatch is also attached. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 155 

Mr. CoHN. And that uses the term "anti-Communist" ? 

Mr. Fulling. That uses the term "anti-Communist Guatemalans." 

Mr. CoHN. And the news dispatch you prepared uses that term on 
two occasions, and in both occasions it has been deleted and replaced, 
in one occasion by the word "citizens" and in the other by the word 
"democratic" ; is that right ? 

Mr. Fulling. "Democratic." 

Mr. CoHN. Now, did you object to these deletions and changes? 

Mr. Fulling. I did, sir. 

Mr. CoHN. To whom did you make this objection ? 

Mr. Fulling. I made the objection to Mr. Donald Taylor, who was 
then the supervisor of the central news desk, and under whose direc- 
tion these changes had been 

The Chairman. May I interrupt? 

If it meets with the approval of the other Senators, we will issue an 
order now that one must dispose of that pipe. [Laughter.] 

I am going to ask the staff that a supply of cigars be provided every 
day. 

Go ahead, sir. 

Mr. CoHN. You say you took the complaint to Mr. Taylor. Did he 
do anything about it ? 

Mr. Fulling. Mr. Taylor? I took the complaint to him, and I 
called his attention to the fact that we had discussed this in the policy 
meeting, and that the term "anti-Communist" was a very specific term ; 
that if it were changed in any way, it weakened the term. And we 
wanted to show, as I have said previously, that these were spontaneous 
demonstrations by anti-Communists in a country which has very 
strong Communist elements. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, let me ask you this. What was your objection to 
the use of the term "democratic" down in these Latin American coun- 
tries? Did you have some objection to the substitution of that word 
for the worcl "anti-Communist" ? 

Mr. Fulling. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CoHN. What was it ? 

Mr. Fulling. The term "democratic" has been taken over by many 
of the Communists. It has been appropriated to their own uses. There 
are many of the political organizations which are Communist or 
Communist fronts in Latin American countries, which go under such 
names as Democratic Accion or Democratica Nacional, or similar 
terms. The term "democratic" used in this sense is meaningless; I 
mean used in this particular sense. 

Mr. CoHN. Do you have before you any dispatch from a Latin 
American republic indicating that the word "democratic" is used in 
fact by the Communists ? 
Mr. Fulling. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. In other words, in South America, "Democrat" 
does not mean the same as "Southern Democrat" in the United States? 
Mr. Fulling. No, sir, it does not. And I may point out at this 
time that there is no ban on the use of the word "Democrat." 

Senator Symington. I was just going to say, Mr. Chairman, this is 
nonpartisan, or at least bipartisan. 

Mr. Fulling. It is just when it is used in certain ways. And they 
would be inclined to misinterpret it. 

29708— 53— pt. 3 2 



156 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

The Chairman. I was just going to say that in South America the 
term "Democrat" or "Democratic" has been taken over by Communist 
movements, and they try to use that phrase, so that when you refer to 
a Democratic group'in South America, it does not have the same mean- 
ing as though you were referring to a Democratic group in the United 
States ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Fulling. That is correct, yes. 

Mr. CoHN. Did you call this to the attention of Mr. Taylor ? 

Mr. Fulling. I did call that to his attention. 

Mr. CoHN. Did he give you any satisfaction? Did he change the 
script^ 

Mr. Fulling. No, sir ; he did not. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, did you go to anybody else after you went to Mr. 
Taylor? 

Mr. Fulling. Yes. I did. 

Senator Mundt, To stick with Mr. Taylor, what reason did he give 
you for making the changes he did, and not changing it back ? 

Mr. Fulling. Yes, sir. He said he wanted to broaden — I believe 
that was his term — he wanted to "broaden" the effect of this. And I 
told him, as I recall, that that put an entirely different meaning on the 
story when the changes were made, in view of the way they look. 

Senator McClellan. By "broaden it," did he mean so as to make it 
as favorable to the Communists as possible ? 

Mr. Fulling. Sir, I could not answer that question. 

Senator McClellan. That was the effect, was it not ? 

Mr. Fulling. Yes, sir ; I would consider it so. 

Senator Mundt. All right. You are a pretty persistent salesman. 
Did you stop there, or did you continue to emphasize your point with 
Mr. Taylor? 

Mr. Fulling. I did, sir. 

Senator Mundt. And what did he say after that? 

Mr. Fulling. Well, I had been previously warned, when I had 
brought up other protests 

The Chairman. I cannot hear you, sir. 

Mr. Fulling. I had been previously warned, when I had brought 
up other protests, that I was not cooperative with the central desk, and 
that I should apparently cooperate with them ; which I understood to 
mean that I should never raise my voice in protest against any changes 
or anything that they did to the copy. 

Senator Symington. Excuse me. Who warned you ? 

Mr. Fulling. I was warned by Mr. Barry Zorthian, who is the 
Chief of the News Branch. 

The Chairman. Would you give us that name again ? 

Mr. Fulling. Mr. Barry Z-o-r-t-h-i-a-n. 

In this particular case, remembering those warnings, I proceeded 
very amiably. I was not indignant. I just said that this had been 
discussed at the policy meeting, that these words had been decided 
on, that they should use the dispatches exactly as they were, and I saw 
absolutely no reason for changing them, that it would change the 
entire tenor of the story. And I tried to get him to change it. I 
tried to get Mr. Donald Taylor to change it, or put it back in the form 
in which it should be. He would not do so. And I continued to sug- 
gest that this be done, but very amicably. Finally, he became very 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 157 

indignant, and said, "Well, if you insist on this, we will go and see 
Mr. Berman"— Mr. Harold Berman, who is the Assistant Chief of the 
News Branch. 

We also have an order in there that on questions involving policy, 
such as this, where there is any disagreement on it, the Assistant Chief, 
or the Chief, who happens to be tliere, is the final judge on what shall 
be used, and how, 

Mr. Taylor suggested that we see Mr. Berman. 

So we went into Mr. Berman's office and stated our cases to him, and 
I sliowed him where the changes had been made, as I recall, which was 
not at all the way they were written or not the intention. And he 
looked 

Senator Mundt. Will you talk a little more loudly, please? Per- 
haps you should have the mikes up closer to you. 

Mr. Fulling. Probably that is the reason. I thought I was talking 
very loud. 

Senator Mundt. They have enough mechanical equipment around 
there for a Hollywood studio. You might as well use some of it. 

Mr. Fulling. He looked at the item which had been changed, and 
said, in effect, that that was all right, that there was nothing wrong 
with that. And so I told him about my stand on it, and he said : "No," 
that that item as written was all right. And he ^ave me the reason 
for upholding Mr. Taylor in his stand that as originally written, as 
originally written by me, the item was not clear ; it was fuzzy. It was 
not clear writing, not readily understandable. This same line, may 
I interpolate, had been previously used whenever any question was 
brought up about their changing items. 

The Chairman. Will you try and speak a little louder and more 
clearly ? 

Mr. Fulling. I will be glad to do so, sir. 

Mr. CoiiN. Then you got no satisfaction from Mr. Berman, either, 
is that right? 

Mr. Fulling. No, sir. I got no satisfaction from Mr. Berman. 
He left, after handing down what I interpreted as his ruling, but ho 
did not order any changes made. He did not order that it be cor- 
rected or revised to the original way it was written. 

Senator McClellan. Do I understand this controversy, now, all 
centered around the words "anti-Communist"? All of this you are 
talking about, the disagi*eement and the decision, centered around 
the words "anti-Communist" that you used in the original script? 

Mr. Fulling. That is correct, sir. 

Senator McClellan. And that is what he told you was fuzzy and 
not easily understandable ? 

Mr. Fulling. That is correct; that that was not easily under- 
standable. 

Senator McClellan. That is a fuzzy term, is it? 

Mr. Fulling. Well, possibly so. But that was the reason he gave 
me why it was all right the way it was rewritten and the term, "anti- 
Communist," crossed out ; because, as before it was not clear, it was not 
correct, but it was "fuzzy." 

The Chairman. Let me ask you this, Mr. Fulling. You have in- 
dicated that you think the central desk was responsible for trying to 
water down anti-Communist propaganda to make your broadcasts 



158 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM || 

more acceptable to the Communist Party in the Latin American coun- i j 
tries. Will you tell us who, in your opinion, was responsible for this 
catering to the Communist cause ? 

Mr. Fulling. In my opinion, those responsible in this way for 
softening down or catering to the Conmiunist cause were Mr. Harold 
Berman, Mr. Donald Taylor, Mr. Robert Goldman. 

Mr. CoHN. By the way, was Mr. Goldman the one who made these 
original changes in the script ? 

Mr. Fulling. Mr. Goldman was the one under the direct supervi- 
sion of Mr. Taylor who made these revisions. 

Mr. CoHN. Do his initials appear on the bottom of the changes? 

Mr. Fulling. Yes, sir. The initials "B. G." for Bob Goldman, ap- 
pear at the bottom. 

Mr. CoHN. I ask, Mr. Chairman, that the committee receive in evi- 
dence the original INS dispatch using the word "anti-Communist," 
the original of the news broadcast as prepared by Mr. Fulling, show- 
ing on its face the deletion of the words "anti-Communist" on both 
occasions Avhen used, and the substitution of the word "citizens" in 
one instance, and the word "Democratic" in another instance. And 
also I would ask that the Chair receive in evidence the additional news 
dispatch identified by the witness, showing the Communists have used 
the very term "Democratic" in that same area. 

The Chairman. It will be received. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 8 (a) (b) 
and (c) " and may be found in the files of the subcommittee.) 

Mr. CoHN. I have nothing more, sir. 

The Chairman. Senator Mundt? 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Fulling, was this an isolated case, or had 
similar cases occurred before, when this same triumvirate had at- 
tempted to water down dispatches, making them more acceptable and 
palatable to the Communists? 

Mr. Fulling. Yes, sir. Similar cases have occurred before. Un- 
fortunately, Senator, I did not keep records of all of those cases, be- 
cause for quite awhile the cause seemed so hopeless in that organiza- 
tion. It seemed like I was battling entirely alone against these, what 
I term, "very sinister influences." And I didn't know when I would 
ever receive any assistance. 

Senator Mundt. Are Mr. Goldman and Mr. Taylor and Mr. Ber- 
man still employed by the Voice of America, where they can exercise 
this skillful manner of helping communism to the detriment of 
America ? 

Mr. Fulling. Yes, sir. They are, sir. 

Senator Jackson. ^Vlien did you first run into this problem of re- 
vising your news dispatches, as you say, to slant them in such a way 
that they would not carry out their obvious objective? When did that 
start? 

Mr. Fulling. I would say that started about a year or a year and 
a half ago. 

Senator Jackson. Was that when you first came into this section of 
the Department ? 

Mr. Fulling. No, sir. That was about 6 months, I think, after 
I took over this particular assignment. 

Senator Jackson. It was not noticeable right at first? 

Mr. Fulling. No, sir, it was not noticeable right at first. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 159 

Senator Jackson. Now, what other examples are there? I mean, 
clo you have any recollection of their revising your news stories that 
would give the slant that you indicated ? Can you think of any, off- 
hand? I mean, what sort of general line did they take? You have 
cited this example in connection with President Eisenhower's inau- 
guration. As I understand, the Communist organization in Guate- 
mala, which is very strong and practically controls the Government — 
at least one of the Communist groups uses the word "democratic" as 
a part of their organization front. Is that right? 

Mr. Fulling. Are you referring specifically to Guatemala, sir? 

Senator Jackson. Well, I am referring specifically to Guatemaky 
because you referred specifically to it. 

Mr. Fulling. Yv^ell, I am not certain that one of these organizations 
uses the term "democratic front'- in Guatemala. 

Senator Jackson. But in a way, they use the word "democratic" as 
a term that they have appropriated, and at least it is associated with 
Communist activities ? 

Mr. Fulling. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Jackson. Now, do you recall any other situations that 
developed, that occurred, in the past? 

Mr. Fulling. I recall a situation, I think about a month ago, in 
which there had been some troubles in Bolivia, and in which there was 
an uprising of some sort. The news dispatches, naturally, reported 
that uprising. But in order to tell a little more about it, just what it 
was, the news dispatches reported that this was an attempt by right- 
wing and central elements in the Government to get rid of the Com- 
munist elements in the Government, where it was known there were 
some. I attempted to show that, the background of this particular 
thing. 

Senator Jackson. Was that based on news dispatches ? 

Mr. Fulling. That was based on news dispatches, sir; yes, sir. I 
attempted to show this. But the news desk did not want to use the 
word "Communists," that tliey were trying to get rid of the Commu- 
nists in the Government. They did not want to use that term. They 
wanted to substitute for it that they wanted to, well, get rid of the 
Government. It is sort of splitting hairs there. But the purpose of it 
was 

The Chairman. I am not sure if I am following you. 

I understand your testimony to be that at one time there was an up- 
rising on the part of the anti-Communists, the conservatives, to clean 
the Communists out of Government. You were going to write the 
story ill that fashion. 

Then the central desk insisted that you change the story and write 
it to the effect that there was an uprising against the Government, 
rather than against the Communists ? 

Mr. Fulling. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Jackson. What reason did they or the individual who re- 
vised your text give ? 

Mr. Fulling. They said that if it was an uprising, as I recall, it was 
against the Government. 

Senator Jackson. That was true ; was it not ? 

Mr. Fulling. That is true, sir. Yes, sir. But the background of it 
was that it was the center elements in the Government, according to 



160 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

tlie news dispatches, who were wanting to get rid of the Communist 
elements. 

The Chairman-. Senator Symington? 

Senator Symington. Well, did you investigate as to what type of 
a right-wing government in Bolivia they were talking about ? 

Mr. Fulling. No, sir. I did not. 

Senator Symington. Do you know anything about the problem in 
Bolivia at all? 

Mr. Fulling. Yes, sir. I do. 

Senator Symington. Well, will you talk a little bit about that? 

Mr. Fulling. Well, my general knowledge ; yes, sir. 

Senator Symington. I would rather have your specific knowledge 
about what the problem is in Bolivia, what kind of government they 
have there, what kind of a group was trying to overthrow what kind 
of government. 

Mr. Fulling. Yes, sir. The government in Bolivia is the National 
Revolutionary Movement Party. In other words, that is the dominant 
Government party, which is the controlling party. And it runs the 
Government. 

Senator Symington. How long has it been running the Govern- 
ment? 

Mr. Fulling. Since, I would sav, about 8 or 9 months. Within 
that party are center elements ; that is, conservative, we will say, ele- 
ments, and there are also left wingers and one or two known Com- 
munists. 

Senator Jackson. Cabinet officers? 

Mr. Fulling. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jackson. They are in the Cabinet ? 

Mr. Fulling. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jackson. It is a united- front type of government, would 
you say ? 

Mr. Fulling. Yes, sir. 

Senator Symington. Do you know what the position of the Argen- 
tine Government is with respect to the current Bolivian Government? 
Do you know whether the Argentine Government controls the present 
Bolivian Government? In other words, is it a fascistic government 
in Bolivia today or is it a Communist government in Bolivia to- 
day? 

Mr. Fulling. Sir, I could not say. It is composed of 

The Chairman. I just wonder what the purpose of this line of 
questioning is, Senator Symington ? 

Senator Symington. Well, I doubt myself, Mr. Chairman, whether 
the Bolivian Government is a Communist government today in the 
sense that people think of a Communist government, even though it 
may be a totalitarian government. 

Mr. Fulling. I would agree with you, sir. I do not think it is a 
totally Communist government. 

_ Senator Symington. That was the reason for the line of ques- 
tioning. 

Senator Jackson. Just one question. Do you think these people 
you have mentioned, Mr. Berman, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Goldman, had a 
calculated plan or design to slant the news? Or was there an intel- 
lectual difference of opinion that could very well, we will say, take 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 161 

place in the news- writing field? Was it a professional difference of 
opinion? I mean, treating newspaper men as professional people. 

Mr. Fulling. Well, to look at it, it was a professional difference 
of opinion. But it seemed to always follow one pattern. And you 
could almost sense the pattern of thinking on the central desk. 

Senator Jackson. That they were soft toward the problem of com- 
munism ? 

Mr. Fulling. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jackson. Did they discuss communism with you, the issue 
of communism ? 

Mr. Fulling. No, sir, not generally. 

Senator Jackson. You never had any discussions with any of these 
three men that you have referred to ? 

Mr. Fulling. Outside of our disagreement. 

Senator Jackson. I mean on the subject of communism and how 
to combat it in connection with your work. 

Mr. Fulling. No, sir, I don't recall any specific discussions. 

Senator Jackson. So that you base your opinion on the editing of 
your script from time to time? 

Mr. Fulling. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jackson. Do you think they are Communists ? 

Mr. Fulling. I would not like to state my opinion on that, Senator. 
I would be very glad for the committee to determine. 

The Chairman. Are you convinced it is friendly to the Communist 
cause ? 

Mr. Fulling. I do believe that, Senator. 

The CHAIR3HAN. Senator McClellan? 

Senator McClellan. You spoke of a pattern that is followed. You 
have given us an example here of the words, "anti-Communist" being 
stricken from the script and other words substituted. Do you know 
of any instance in their broadcast in which the words "anti-Commu- 
nist" were permitted to be used in a light unfavorable to communism ? 
Can you cite a single instance where they have permitted a broadcast 
to go out as an anti-Communist broadcast, or using that term so as to 
reflect upon the Communists, as such ? 

Mr. Fulling. I do not recall any, sir. 

Senator McClellan, In all your experience, you do not know of any 
instance where they permitted the use of the word "anti-Communist" 
or "anticommunism" to be broadcast to other countries? In the light 
of referring to a group or an action as being anti-Communist or a 
protest against communism, has it been permitted? Has that term 
been used or permitted to be used in that light ? 

Mr. Fulling. I don't recall it, sir. 

Senator McClellan. Or have they always substituted and used the 
term "Democratic" or "citizens" or something on that order, some- 
thing softer, and less fuzzy, may we say? 

Mr. Fulling. Well, I don't recall from my particular knowledge, 
in my particular knowledge, in my particular area. They may have 
used it in other copy 

Senator McClellan. Well, to your knowledge, it has not been used 'i 
Is that what you are saying ? 

Mr. Fulling. I do not recall it beins; used. Yes, sir. 



162 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Mr. ScHiNE. Mr. Fulling, has there been any change in this attitude 
which has resulted in the stifling of anti-Communist propaganda at 
the news desk in the last week since this investigation started ? 

Mr. Fulling. Yes, sir ; there has been. Within the past week there 
lias been quite a change in the handling of news relating to Commu- 
nist activities and anti-Communist activities. 

The Chairman. A change for the better, or for the worse ? 

Mr. Fulling. For the better. 

Senator Mundt. Just a minute. Let us find out how that change 
was implemented, how you came to learn of it? Was it in the form 
of a memorandum? Or just a subjective reaction that you sense in 
the general environment down there ? 

Mi\ Fulling. No, sir; it came about this way. I have since pre- 
pared stories, or I have prepared stories within the past week, relating 
to activities of Communists in Latin American countries, and of Com- 
munist elements, and in some instances the central desk has specifically 
pointed out to me how it could use certain terms that would be even 
more definitely against the Communists. And I assure you that I am 
appreciative of those efforts, and I accepted them, because I am cer- 
tainly appreciative of any effort to strengthen our stand against com- 
munism. And they would point out and suggest to me certain terms 
or words within the past week that could be used to strengthen our 
stand against communism. I think tliat I am very appreciative of 
that. And I accepted their suggestions. 

The Chairman. You may step down. 

Who is your next witness, Mr. Counsel ? 

Mr. CoHN. Dr. Lenkeith, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Dr. Lenkeith, will you raise your right hand? 

In this matter now in hearing before the committee, do you solemnly 
swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 
help you God ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. I do. 

The Chairman. Before this witness commences to testify, I would 
like to call the attention of the committee to a situation which has 
just been brought to my attention. On February 12 the International 
Information Administration issued a memorandum directing all their = 
employees to cooperate fully with this committee, to appear when they . 
are requested, either formally or informally, and to give such infor- ] 
mation as the committee might require. We appreciated that very 
much at the time it was issued and felt it indicated a spirit of coopera- | 
tion on the part of the International Information Administration. ; 

Since then, however, on the 18th of February, an order has been i 
issued by the State Department which revokes this order by the In- j 
ternational Information Administration. In view of that, the entire \ 
information program is placed directly under the State Department . 
and all the employees of the International Information Administra- i 
tion are State Department employees. i 

I have before me a memorandum dated February 18 : "To All Em- . 
ployees," from John W. Ford. Mr. Ford, incidentally, is the same ■ 
Mr. Ford who took punitive action against Mr. Matson for having , 
testified before this committee. \ 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 163 

I quote from the memorandum : 

Februaet 18, 1953. 

The attached memorandum is being directed to all employees of the Office 
of Security. I cannot stress too strongly the importance of this directive and its 
significance to the Department. 

I must insist that each employee adhere strictly to these instructions and any 
deviation should be called to my personal attention for decision. 

Then the order, in five parts : 

Part No. 1 provides that all of the blackout orders of the former 
President shall remain in existence, shall be scrupulously adhered to 
by all State Department employees. 

I will put this entire memorandum into the record. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 9" and will 
be found in the appendix on p. 222.) 

The Chairman. The section which concerns me most is section 
No. 3. I quote it. It is in direct contradiction to the one originally 
issued by the Information Administration. 

I quote section No. 3 : 

That it is a matter of individual employee discretion as to whether he talks 
informally with a member of a committee or subcommittee staff without a 
Senator being present. 

The effect of that, of course, is to completely stifle the investigative 
power of this committee. If the State Department employees refuse 
to talk to our investigators, will only talk when they are here under 
subpena, it means it will be difficult for us beyond words to continue 
exposing the sort of material which has been exposed over the past 
few days, which I am sure all Americans want to hear about. 

Now, this memorandum indicates that this has been issued with the 
approval of General Smith and Mr. Phleger. I cannot believe that. 
I do not think General Smith is starting out in this fashion. I am sure 
Secretary Dulles knows nothing about this. I am sure Mr. Lourie 
knows nothing about it. 

I had a conversation with Mr. Lourie yesterday, a rather extended 
conference. When we completed that, I was fully satisfied that the 
Secretary of State and Mr. Lourie and the entire Department would 
cooperate with this committee. For that reason, I am sure that they 
are not aware of this unusual memorandum. 

1 have instructed the staff to have General Smith here at 4 : 30 this 
afternoon in executive session ; to have Mr. Ford here, the man who 
issued this ; and Mr. Boykin, and Mr. Meade who signed this. 

I think this is of the utmost importance that we clear this matter up 
once and for all, and I certainly hope that as many of the members 
of the committee as possible can be present for this very important 
session this afternoon. 

If this is to remain in effect, it will cost us 10 times as much to get 
the same information. It will make it 10 times as difficult. It will 
mean that we will have to use the power of subpena in each case, go 
to the expense of having everything recorded, and the cost of the re- 
porters is very high. I do not mean unreasonably high, Mr. Reporter. 
But it will make it impossible for us to do a decent job. 

This witness has been sworn. 

Mv. Counsel, you may proceed. 

Mr. CoHN. What is your full name, please? 

29708 — 53— Dt. 3 2 



164 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

TESTIMONY OF DR. NANCY LENKEITH 

Dr. Lenkeith. Nancy Lenkeith, L-e-n-k-e-i-t-li. 

Mr. CoHN. And you hold a university degree ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. I do. 

Mr. CoHN. What university ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. Well, my last degree was from Columbia 
University. 

Mr. CoHN. And what degree was that? 

Dr. Lenkeith. 1948, doctor of philosophy. 

Mr. CoHN. Very well. Now, Dr. Lenkeith, were you ever employed 
by the Voice of America ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. I was. 

Mr. Corn. When did you commence employment with the Voice 
of America ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. I commenced employment on December 13, 1951. 

Mr. Cohn. And in which service did you commence employment 
with the Voice of America ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. In the French Section. 

Mr. Cohn. In the French Section. Who was the head of the French 
Section at the time you went to work there ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. The Acting Chief was Mr. Troup Mathews. 

Mr. Cohn. And who was the actual Chief ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. Mr. Auberjonois. 

The Chairman. The first name was ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. Troup, T-r-o-u-p, Mathews, M-a-t-h-e-w-s. 

Mr. Cohn. Now, you say Mr. Mathews was Acting Chief at this 
time ; is that right ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Cohn. Now, did you have any conversation with Mr. Mathews } 
on the day that you commenced employment with tlie Voice of 
America ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. I did. 

Mr. Cohn. Would you give us the substance of that conversation ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. He told me about his point of view toward his 
work, toward his own career; told me that his primary interest was 
in setting up collectivist groups. 

Mr. Cohn. Collectivist groups? 

Dr. Lenkeith. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Cohn. Did he tell you why he wanted collectivist groups set up ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. Yes, because he said that there were better sides 

The Chairman. May I interrupt you ? 

If this is the type of collectivist group that you described to us in 
executive session, in view of the fact that we are on television, and 
many children are watching this program, I think we will wait and 
let you describe these collectivist groups after we are off the air. 
O.K.? 

Did he say anything to you concerning your views toward religion i 
generally ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. Yes; he said that he did not want to have anything :j 
to do with anyone who had held any dogmatic religious belief, because 
such people were incapable of sound human relations. 

The Chairman. Did he say anything to you about Marxism? 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 165 

Dr Lenkeith. Yes. His purpose in establishing these collectivist 
groups was to further the better sides of Marxism, he said, which had 
been disregarded and defeated by the Soviets. , . , -^ . 

Mr. CoHX. Now, did you tliereafter commence work m the t rencH 
Section of the Voice of America? 

Dr. Lekkeith. I did, sir. 

The Chairman. May I interrupt? , i -, . ^i it i 

Do I understand your testimony to be that the head ot the i^ rencli 
desk believed in the teachings of Karl Marx, believed in the Commu- 
nist doctrine, but thought that Soviet Russia had subverted the teach- 
ings of Marx to some extent? Is that correct? 

Dr Lenkeith. My testimonv. Senator, is repeating what i was told 
in his words as well' as I recollect them. I did not question him fur- 
ther, because I was entering employment, and did not want to get into 
any trouble right then. 

Senator Jackson. Was he a Titoist? Or what form ^ 

Dr. Lenkeith. Senator, I did not investigate. I was ]ust being 
hired. It was the first time I met him. 

Senator McCleli^\n. Will you tell us where he had m mmd to estab- 
lish these collectivist groups ? -, . . i 

Dr. Lenkeith. Well, if he was sent to France, he wanted to estab- 
lish them in France, and if he remained here, he wanted to purchase 
a house in Rockland County to establish one there. 

Senator McCi^ellan. Was that to be^ 

The Chairman. Just a minute. 

(Brief consultation.) 

Senator MgClellan. What I was interested in knowing was, m 
referring to these collectivist groups that he wanted to establish, if it 
was to include emplovees of this service and to include you ? In other 
words, were the collectivist groups to be established outside of this 
Government service or the employees within the service? That is 
what I am trying to establish. 

Dr. Lenkeith. Senator, I hesitate to say. I was meeting him as 
my future employer. He mentioned it to me, asked me whether I was 
interested. . 

Senator McClellan. He asked you if you were interested ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. I mean, interested in the problem. I let him talk 
on, and, as I say, I was not at all interested at that time in finding out 
about Mr. Mathews' personal views. I was interested in finding out 
what kind of job I was to do. ^ • i i 

Senator McClellan. What I was trying to determine was whether 
these were to be established abroad, or if they were to be established 
in the United States. 

Dr. Lenkeith. Well, his answer was that they would be open to 
anyone who did not hold to any dogmatic religious beliefs. 

The Chairman. You said you were not interested m that project 
at that time. You are not interested in it now, are you? 

Dr. Lenkeith. No, Senator. 

The Chairman. I did not think so. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, you say you went to v.ork with the French Service. 
Now, after you weiit to work with the French Service, did you have 
occasion to review any of the scri])ts that were going out over the Voice 
of America to France ? 



166 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Dr. Lenkeith. I did, sir. The radio is a public medium. We all 
listen to the broadcast every day. And I was particularly interested 
in the scripts which went over on Tuesdays. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, in reviewing those scripts, did you form an opinion 
as to whether or not they all reflected the objectives of the Voice of 
America, to tell the truth about the American way of life, and to 
counter untrue Communist propaganda concerning us? 

Dr. Lenkeith. I did, sir. 

Mr. CoHN. And what was that conclusion? 

Dr. Lenkeith. The conclusion was that certain scripts were defi- 
nitely damaging, detrimental, as detrimental as they could possibly 
be to our country, in social terms ; I mean, just giving an unfavorable 
picture, no political technicalities, you know, no political things in- 
volved; just in painting a dark picture of the United States. The 
bulk of the scripts — and this is the thing that struck me also, equally, 
and within a few days of my employment — was that at 10 o'clock 
in the morning, sometimes, nobody had any idea of what was going 
to be broadcast at 12:30. And 1 think within 10 days of my em- 
ployment, Mr. Mathews, whose responsibility was to initial the scripts 
that were broadcast, disappeared, could not be found. His secretary 
was driven frantic trying to cover him up. I found myself as a new 
recruit who had been given no propaganda directives, with a super- 
visor who could not be located at his home or elsewhere. 

The Chairman. May I interrupt? Mr, Counsel, is this the same 
Mr. Mathews who is the subject of investigation on the loyalty pro- 
gram of the Civil Service Commission in connection with a job in 
OWI? 

Mr. CoHN. That is our information, Mr. Chairman, and we are 
following that out now, and I am going to ask that Mr. Mathews 
appear before the committee in the near future. 

The Chairman. Very good. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, Dr. Lenkeith, do you recall the Lincoln's Birthday 
following your employment? 

Dr. Lenkeith. I do. 

Mr. CoHN. That was Lincoln's Birthday, 1952; is that right? 

Dr. Lenkeith. February 12, which was a Tuesday. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, was there any discussion about a Lincoln's Birth- 
day show ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. There was. 

The Chairman. Let me interrupt. Senator Symington wants to 
ask a question. 

Senator Syimington. Would you mind saying where you were born ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. I was born in London. 

Senator Symington. And what was your first education ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. Well, it was very complicated, Senator. My father 
was representing American business interests in France and wanted 
me to take advantage of the fact that we were living abroad, and he 
wanted me to be trilingual, to speak both French and Italian. So I 
was shifted from Italian to French schools, to summers in the United 
States to visit my grandparents, to summers in England. I received 
a degree of bachelor of philosophy from the University of Aix-en- 
Provence. I was about to graduate, with the degree of License-es- 
Lettres, when we had to escape from France in 1940, which we did 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 167 

via Bordeaux into England. I arrived in tlie United States in Oc- 
tober 1940, entered Barnard College, where I received a scholarship, 
continued my education as a Lydig Fellove at Columbia University. 

Senator Symington, Why did you want to go in the State Depart- 
ment ? 

Dr. Lenkeitu. I was very honest with my j)rofessors at Columbia 
when I received the fellowship and told them I was more interested 
in writing and in journalism than in teaching. 

Before I received my degree, actually, in 1946, 1 began working for 
a New York publishing house, and worked for 2 publishing houses. 
Then I decided that I wanted to teach. And I taught at Queens Col- 
lege for 2 years. I ran into difficulties there, because I largely did 
not — I am a member of the American Committee for Cultural Free- 
dom and a member of the Association of University Professors, in- 
active now, but I find it very difficult to teach undergraduates, sopho- 
mores, who have had their freshmen instruction under, well, a 
member of the department who has since very recently, 2 weeks ago, 
I think, been questioned by a Senate committee. And I resigned from 
Queens College, and was interested in — Voice of America in a sense 
is teaching, on a different plane. I realized I was teaching English, 
literature, and I realized that I had my languages, that I could use 
them. I am bilingual; trilingual, in fact. And I thought that I 
wanted to propagate, you know, American values, and I thought that 
that was the place for me. 

Senator Symington. In other words, you joined the State Depart- 
ment because you believe in the American values, and you wanted to 
express yourself. Is that it ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. Yes. And I am also not particularly interested in 
a high-geared business career. And, you know, the State Department, 
the Voice of America — I am not interested in achieving a high salary. 
If I were a young man 

Senator Symington, Why did you leave the State Department? 

Dr. Lenkeith. I was fired, sir. 

Senator Symington. You were fired ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. Yes. 

Senator Symington. Who fired you ? Wlio signed your dismissal 
notice, or who talked to you and told you to get out? 

Dr. Lenkeith. I believe my dismissal notice was signed — I am not 
positive ; I don't think I examined that. I was called into an office 
one evening at 5 : 20 in the evening,-, and in the presence of several 
officials of the Voice of America, I was informed that as of 6 o'clock 
that evening my services would no longer be required. 

The Chairman. I wonder if you would give Senator Symington 
the facts leading up to your dismissal, the reason for it. Would you 
do that ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. Well, Senator, I was never given those facts, myself. 

Senator Jackson. What reason did they give you ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. Well, they told me — the reason they gave was my 
attitude. They told me that the person who was there, one of the 
people there 

Senaator Syiviington. Would you name the people, when you say 
"they," as much as you can ? 



168 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAJVI 

Dr. Lenkeith. I think the Chairman of the meeting — there were 
several people — was a Mr. Dwight Herrick, who was deputy head of 
Operations, deputy for Mr. Puhan. 

The Chairman. May I go back a few days in this? There were 
some circumstances, I assume, leading up to your discharge. Tell us 
about them. Why were you discharged ? What work did you do that 
they disapproved of? No. 1, did you offer to review Chambei-s' book? 

Dr. Lenkeith. I offered, and I did. 

The Chairman. And wdien you suggested that you would review 
Chambers' book — — 

Dr. Lenkeith. It was my job to do so, Senator. 

The Chairman. It was your job to do that sort of work. And when 
your superiors learned you were about to review that book, what 
Jiappened? 

Dr. Lenkeith. Well, that is a rather long and difficult 

The Chairman. We want to hear it. We want to hear the whole 
story. 

Dr. Lenkeith. It is a difficult story. You see, if I may say this : 
When I was called in, to be dismissed, and my attitude was referred 
to, I informed the committee there, informed Mr. Dwight Herrick, 
of the conversation we had had together, Mr. Herrick and me. 

The Chairman. Let us go back a few days, again. When did 
you first discuss with anyone the fact that you were going to review 
Whittaker Chambers' book? 

Dr. Lenkeith. Well the first mention of Whittaker Chambers in 
the section I had nothing to do with. When Mr. Auberjonois, who 
was head of the section, returned from France, there was a staff 
meeting, at which employees of the section questioned him as to in 
what way his recent experience in France, in the last few months, 
would modify our directive. 

The Chairman. Will you try and concentrate on my question? 

Dr. Lenkeith. I am. At that meeting, a member of the staff, 
Mr. Horneffer, asked what we should do with the Whittaker Cham- 
bers story, which was then appearing in serial in the Saturday Eve- 
ning Post. Mr. Auberjonois' answ^er to Mr. Horneffer was, as I recol- 
lect — all members of the staff were present — that "Whittaker Cham- 
bers is a psychopath. Don't touch him with a 10-foot pole." That 
was that. 

Later I was in charge of a book program featured every Tuesday and 
relayed by the French network. I did not become involved until 
Whittaker Chambers' book, Witness, was published by Random House. 
The Chairman. Yes? 

Dr. Lenkeith. Late in May ; at which point Mr. Auberjonois had 
been removed from the section, as the result of an investigation which 
had been started by some complaint by me and some other members 
of the section. And a new head of the section had been appointed, 
a Mr. Walter Ducloux. 
The Chairman. How do you spell that ? 
Dr. Lenkeith. D-u-c-1-o-u-x. 

Senator Symington. When you left the State Department, you 
were summarily discharged because you wanted to review a book by 
Whittaker Chambers ? Or because of your attitude ? You see, what 
I am trying to get at is : Your charges are pretty serious against these 
men. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 169 

Dr. Lenkeith. I realize that, Senator. 

Senator Symington. And if they look at those charges, on the basis 
of you being a disgruntled discharged employee, that might color the 
eflFect of what you are saying, and therefore I think it is important 
that you tell the committee why you left the State Department or 
why you were discharged, to the best of your ability. 

Dr. Lenkeith. Could this answer your question, Senator'^ I was 
dismissed summarily. As of 6 o'clock, I left the State Department. 
Since then I have found other work, started a new business. 

The Chairman. No, that does not answer the question. Dr. Len- 
keith, were you discliarged because you favorably reviewed Whittaker 
Chambers' book, or were you not? 

Dr. Lenkeith. I was not told why I was discharged. The fact 
was that the day before I was discharged, I reviewed Whittaker Cham- 
bers' book. 

The Chairman. Had you been told not to review the book? 

Dr. Lenkeith. I had not been told not to review the book. 

The Chairman. Do you know now you were discharged because 
you favorably reviewed Chambers' book, or not? 

Dr. Lenkeith. I didn't understand. 

Tlie Chairman. Do you know, as of today, that you were discharged 
because you favorably reviewed Chambers' book, or for some other 
reason ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. I was never given the facts, Senator. 

The Chairman. Well, you talked to your fellow employees. You 
knew what the situation was. You gave us a very clear story in 
executive session. Just try and recount the entire story. 

Dr. Lenkeith. Well, to get back : The first thing Mr. Auberjonois 
said was, "Don't touch Chambers with a 10-foot pole." 

Wlien Mr. Ducloux became head of the Section, there was a staflf 
meeting, at which the problems of production of voices was discussed, 
of music, and I brought up the question and asked what our policy 
and what our propaganda line was. Mr. Ducloux' answer was that 
we all knew what our policy and propaganda line was. 

The Chairman. May I interrupt ? 

Mr. Counsel, you have interviewed the witness several times, and 
you may be able to get the facts. 

Senator Jackson. First, may I ask: When were you discharged? 
What was the date of your discharge ? 

The Chairman. Could we not let counsel develop that? 

Senator Jackson. I just wanted to get the date. 

Dr. Lenkeith. June 11, 1952. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, on this Chambers book, you say the first men- 
tion you ever heard of the policy meeting was when Mr. Auberjonois 
said that Chambers was a psychopath and you shouldn't touch this 
with a 10-foot pole. Is that right ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. CoHN. That was before the book came out; is that right? 

Dr. Lenkeith. That is right. It is when the serialization in the 
Saturday Evening Post occurred. 

Mr. Cohn. Now, did there come a time when the book actually 
appeared ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. There came such a time, sir. 



170 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Mr. CoHN, And at that time did you insist on reviewing the book? 

Dr. Lenkeith. Yes. I brought this up. I asked what our new 
policy line would be. I was told everyone knew it. Mr. Troup 
Mathews got up and said our new policy line with the new Chief of 
the Section, Mr. Ducloux, was "entertaining radio." I got up and 
said, "Well, in my book talk, what use should I make of Whittaker 
Chambers' book ? " No answer. 

I went to Mr. Ducloux privately in his office, and said, "What about 
this IVliittaker Chambers' book?" 

He said, "I have got to think about it. It is a very, very ticklish 
question, one that requires a great deal of thought." I told him that 
I didn't see why it was ticklish or wh}^ it required any particular 

Mr. CoHN. Now, did you tell them why you wanted to review Wliit- 
taker Chambers' book ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. Yes, sir. I told them that I wanted to review Wliit- 
taker Chambers' book for two reasons. One, I was supposed to illus- 
trate and to document the cultural life of the United States. 

Mr. CoHN. What was the second reason ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. And I, as a critic, felt this was one of the greatest 
boofe written that spring. 

Mr. CoHN. What was the second reason ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. The second reason was that I felt that we were 
broadcasting to our target audience — our target audience in that pro- 
gram is the worker or the farmer — supposedly to people who hold 
Communist views, and our purpose is to bring them over, to show 
them what our political creed is, to bring them to anticommunism, 
and I felt that the best way to convert a Communist to anticommunism 
is to give him, to show him, the story of a man who has moved from 
communism to anticommunism, and who says why. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, did you keep pressing your position that that 
Chambers book should be reviewed ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. I did, sir. And I finally won my point. Because 
of my professional work, I met one of the foremost American literary 
agents in Paris. 

Mr. CoHN. Did she tell you that this Chambers book was a very 
important book in France and w^ould be very eifective if used over the 
Voice of America ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. Yes, sir. I asked her what books would be impor- 
tant in the list as of interest to a large number of Frenchmen, as 
books, and she mentioned this Chambers book. 

Mr. CoiiN. Did you go back and tell that to your superiors, and did 
you insist that the Chambers book be reviewed ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. I did, sir. 

Mr. CoHN. And did you prepare a review of the Chambers book? 

Dr. Lenkeith. I did, sir. I wrote that review in the office on June 9. 

Mr. Cohn. Now, before the review was broadcast, did the policy 
director of the Voice, when you called him for information, 
question whether or not you had the authority to review the book? 

Dr. Lenkeith. Yes. I called the policy director of the Voice to 
ask him how I should describe Alger Hiss. I had mentioned that 
Witness, the title, came from the fact that Wliittaker Chambers had 
witnessed, you see, against this man, and I asked how he should be de- 
scribed, whether the State Department should be mentioned or not. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 171 

Mr. CoHK, Will you tell us whether it should be mentioned or not ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. Mr. Kretsmann said to me: "What? AVliy for 
heaven's sake, why are you talking about that book ?" And I repeated 
my story — you know, a good example of a Communist switching — he 
said, "Have you obtained clearance?" I said no, that mine wasn't a 
strictly political clearance, and I hadn't obtained clearance for any 
other book. 

Mr. CoHN. You told him you did not have to obtain clearance, that 
you were just going to do it ; right? 

Dr. Lenkeith. Yes. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, then, did there come a time when you actually 
wrote the script for this broadcast ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. I did, that same day. 

Mr. CoHN. What was that day ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. June 9. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, did there come a time when you went in and broad- 
cast that script over the Voice of America ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. I did, sir, the next clay. 

Mr. CoHN. What day was that? 

Dr. Lenkeith. June 10. 

Mr. CoiiN. What happened to you on June 11 ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. As I said previously, I was called in at 5 : 20, and 
1 was told that as of 6 o'clock my services would no longer be required. 

Mr. Cohn. Did they say anything about a defiant attitude on your 
part? 

Dr. Lenkeith. Yes. Those were the reasons they gave. 

The Chairman. Counsel, will you find out whether, under normal 
procedure, she had to get clearance to i-eview a book ? 

Mr. CoHN. Under the normal procedure, the chairman would like 
to knoAv, did you require clearance in order to review a book? 

Dr. Lenkeith. Well, I had done this work for 6 months. I had 
never been told — I had never obtained any clearance. I had never 
heard of anyone else getting such clearance. 

Mr. CoHN. And you just took the position you could go ahead and 
do this on your own initiative, and you did so ; is that right ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. Well, it was my responsibility to select the books 
I would talk about. I mean, that was part of my whole job. 

Mr, Cohn. Now, the day you were fired, the day after having broad- 
cast this Chambers script, let me ask you this : What were the reports 
on your efficiency, on your performance at the Voice of America ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. I have never seen any such reports, sir. When I 
first came in, they mentioned the fact that I lacked competence, and, 
as I say, my French is practically that of a native, and the head of 
the section's wasn't. And I asked, and they hesitated about that, and 
then they informed me that I lacked cultural background to judge 
books. I am a professional book reviewer. 

Then Mr. Herrick said, "Let's face it, Nancy. No matter what 
your competence was, we couldn't keep you, because of your attitude." 

Mr. CoHN. He said no matter what your competence w^as, they 
couldn't keep you, because of your attitude ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. Yes, in the presence of four other people he said 
this. 



29708— 53— pt. 3- 



172 STATE DEPARTMENT rNFORMATION PROGRAM 

Mr. CoHN. Let me ask you this. Did you, in your review of the 
Chambers book have reference to the review of the book by Sidney 
Hook in the New York Times ? 

Dr. LenkeIth. I did, sir. 

Mr. CoHN. Was any objection made to your use of the review of 
Sidney Hook ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. Yes. Mr. Ducloux told me that he thought it was 
the worst review. I told him I disagreed, and I used it. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, let me ask you 

The Chairman. Let me interrupt. Sidney Hook's review is a fa- 
vorable review of Whittaker Chambers' book ? 

Mr. CoHN. Yes. We have a copy here. 

The Chairman. It will be marked as an exhibit. 

(The review referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 10" and may be 
found in the files of the subcommittee. ) 

Senator McClellan. May I ask the witness if a copy of the script 
that she used on the day before she was discharged was available to 
the committee ? 

Mr. CoHN. I will answer that. Senator McClellan. We will ob- 
tain a copy of that script. 

Senator McClellan. You do not have it now ? 

Mr. CoHN. We have requested it, I might say. But we have pressed 
the request, and I am sure we will get it. 

Senator McClellan. I would like to find out how many times be- 
fore the witness has exercised the privilege or assumed the defiant 
attitude of broadcasting scripts without having them approved. 

Dr. Lenkeith. I did have that script approved. Senator. 

Senator McClellan. You did have this script approved ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. Yes, sir. There was absolutely no breach. I did 
have it approved. There was absolutely no way in which I defied any 
of my supervisors. 

Senator McClellan. Well, who approved it? 

Dr. Lenkeith. Mr. Walter Ducloux, the Chief of the Section. I 
would not have broadcast it otherwise. 

Senator McClellan. Well, you were not defiant in that you went 
on the air and broadcast a script that had not been approved ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. It had been approved, Senator. 

Mr. CoHN. Was it your original responsibility to make the decision 
that it should be broadcast? 

Dr. Lenkeith. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CoHN. You were required to present the script ? You did so ? 
And they asked you not to refer to the Hook review ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. Yes. 

Mr. CoiiN. Did you press the point, and refer to it? 

Dr. Lenkeith. Yes. My defiance was, if I may say, in persuading 
him, in arguing my point and persuading him. 

Senator Symington. I am not quite clear as to why you were dis- 
charged for reviewing a book on the air, if your review was approved. 
I think that is the point Senator McClellan is trying to get at. 

Dr. Lenkeith. Well, I might bring to bear another point here. 
You see, the fact is that I cannot say why I was discharged. I can 
only say what I was told. I have seen no documents. I myself am no 
judge of my competence or utility there. You see what I mean ? 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 173 

Senator Jackson. Did you not protest it? You are aware of the 
fact that you had a right of appeal ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. I did not have a right of appeal, Senator. I asked 
the gentlemen present whether I had any right of appeal, and they told 
me I did not. 

Senator Jackson. I mean, you could find that out. As I under- 
stand, in the State Department, you can only be dismissed 

Senator Mundt. She did not have 6 months. 

Mr. CoHN. She did not have a status. 

Dr. Lenkeith. But the point was that I reminded Mr. Herrick 
that I had received a personal promise from Mr. Puhan, the Chief of 
Operations, that I would be guaranteed, that I was personally guar- 
anteed by him, a transfer to another section, either Italian or English, 
if it became too rough for me in that section because of my anti-Com- 
munist • 

Senator Symington. Could we go back a bit ? As I understand it, 
you felt that perhaps the reason you were discharged was because of 
the review of a Whittaker Chambers book ? Is that correct ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. What did you say ? 

Senator Symington. As I understand it, you feel that perhaps the 
reason you were discharged was because of the review of a Whittaker 
Chambers book? 

Dr. Lenkeith. I can only say that I was discharged the day after 
I did so, and that I could never find any other 

Senator Symington. So that you were discharged for something 
that you had been given approval of ? Is that correct ? 

Well, let us skip that and just get to this point. Let me ask you 
one more question. What was your attitude toward the Wliittaker 
Chambers book ? Did you approve of Whittaker Chambers and the 
book, or did you disapprove of '\^niittaker Chambers and the book ? 

Dr. LENiiEiTH. My attitude was this: I was doing a book talk. My 
attitude was to show, you know, the human values, the courage and 
suffering of Whittaker Chambers, the way he conveyed it in the book, 
his appreciation of the American scene. 

The Chairman. May I interrupt? The Senator wants to know 
whether you made a favorable or an unfavorable review of Whittaker 
Chambers' book. 

Dr. Lenkeith. A favorable review. I think it is a great book. 

The Chairman. That is all. Any further questions? 

Mr. CoHN. Yes. I would like to ask you this. Dr. Lenkeith. We 
were talking before about this Lincoln's Day broadcast in 1952. Now, 
who in your Service prepared that Lincoln's Day broadcast? 

Dr. Lenkeith. I did, sir. 

Mr. Cohn. Now, was somebody supposed to prepare that before 
you did ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. Yes. I was planning it, and Mr. Mathews told me 
he had assigTied the writing of the script to a certain script writer. 

Mr. Cohn. And who was that script writer? 

Dr. Lenkeith. Her name was Marcelle Henry. 

Mr. Cohn. Did you feel that her attitude was such that she should 
not be the one to write a script for Lincoln's Day ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. I did feel that, sir. 

Mr. Cohn. Did you bring that back to the attention of Mr. Mathews ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. I did, sir, and he agreed with me. 



174 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Mr. CoHN. And did he tell you why, in spite of that, he had asked 
her to write the script ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. Yes. He told me he had lent her his own personal 
copy of The Prairie Years, and was giving her that assignment in the 
hopes that it might bring about a change of heart in her. 

Mr. CoHN. A change in her? 

Dr. Lenkeith. A cliange of heart. 

Senator Mundt. Why was that ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. Well,^he said she would find that Lincoln, too, had 
been torn by doubt and had emerged as a proud leader of the United 
States. I am rephrasing what he said, but I remember the doubt, and 
that she might have more sympathy for American tradition and 
American life. 

Senator Mundt. If he had no confidence in her position as to the 
American tradition, how come he had employed her? 

Dr. Lenkeith. I asked that question, sir. You must realize that I 
only worked there for 6 months and know very little about the back- 
ground. I asked that question of Mr. Alfred Puhan. 

Senator Mundt. It seemed a little incredible to me that here is the 
head of the section of the Voice of America who has an employee about 
whose loyalty he has doubts, so he gives her a book on Lincoln to try 
to convert her to the American tradition. It would be much easier, 
it seems to me, to find an employee in the first instance who believes 
in America. 

Dr. Lenkeith. I brought that to the attention of Mr. Alfred Puhan, 
the Chief of Operations. 

Senator Mundt. Wliat was his reaction ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. Well, he tried to question me as to whether I had 
any evidence of any Communist infiltration of scripts. And I refused 
to say. I said I couldn't say that. I said I didn't like what was being 
used. I said that it was mistaken, that it was incompetent, and that 
it led to a very unfavorable picture of the United States, which 
coincided with the myths the Communist Party is propagating in 
France. 

Mr. Puhan 's answer to me was : "You Imow very little. You have 
only worked here for a few months. If you knew what I Imow, you 

would say ." And in connection with Marcelle Henry, he said, 

"I knew her in Luxembourg, and I know friends of hers in New York." 
And I am now quoting Mr. Puhan. I have no information of my own. 
He said to me, "She is subversive." 

The Chairman. How do you spell her name ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. H-e-n-r-y. 

Mr. Cohn. Let me ask you this. Dr. Lenkeith. Did you ever have 
any discussion about this Lincoln Day production with Bill Malten, the 
producer, who was working on that broadcast? 

Dr. Lenkeith. Yes. 

Mr. Cohn. What did he say to you about the idea of doing a 
Lincoln's Day broadcast ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. Well, he said : "That damn Lincoln ! Why do we 
have to talk about him again ? We talk about him all the time, and he 
bores the French." 

Mr. Cohn. Mr. Chairman, at this point, we have asked the Voice of 
America to produce here a script of the Lincoln's Day broadcast for 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 175 

1951, which was bix)adcast in 1951, and I nnderstand used in reissue 
overseas in 1952, and I am wondering if Mr. Scliine can read one sen- 
tence from that script. 

The Chairman. Will you read it, Mr. Schine ? 

Mr. Schine (reading) : 

The War Between the States had a year and a half to run. In 1864, the 
American people reelected Lincoln President. Among the letters of congratu- 
lation that came to the White House was one from the International Working 
Men's Association. It was written by Karl Marx. * * * 

Mr. CoHN. Mr. Chairman, at that point, we might note Senator 
Dirksen has advised us and stated that he was invited to speak on this 
broadcast, the script with the reference to Karl Marx was presented 
to him, and he insisted that it be deleted ; otherwise, he would not ap- 
pear on the program, as he did not feel that a letter from Karl Marx 
was a good demonstration of the type of proof we wanted. And when 
the deletion was not made, Senator Dirksen declined to appear on the 
program. 

Senator Jackson. How was the Karl Marx reference used ? I mean 
what was the purpose in the rest of the text? 

Mr. CoHN. I would be glad to hand that to you. Senator. I don't 
see any particular purpose. 

The Chairman. In other words, was this a favorable reference to 
Karl Marx? 

Mr. CoHN. It certainly would seem on its face, Mr, Chairman, to 
hold him out as somebody whose approval we should be pleased about. 

Senator ]\Iundt. Do I understand that this script was written by 
the same young lady? 

Mr. CoHN. No, not at all. This was written a year before she 
worked at the Voice. 

Senator Mundt. Was it by the young lady she was suspicious about ? 

Mr. CoHN. I don't know about that. 

Do you know whether IMarcelle Henry had written the script for 
the prior year ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. I have no information. I was not at the Voice at 
that time. 

Mr. CoiiN. We will ascertain who did prepare that, Senator. 

The Chairman. We will mark the script as an exhibit. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 11" and may 
be found in the files of the subcommittee.) 

Senator McClellan. I would like to ask the question: How are 
you presently employed? What are you doing now? 

Dr. Lenkeith. I am a free lance writer and editor. 

Senator McClellan. Have you been such, since you were dis- 
charged ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. Yes. 

Senator McClellan. Did you ever seek further Government em- 
ployment ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. I did not, sir. 

The Chairman. Any further questions, Mr. Counsel ? 

Senator Mundt. While he is examining that, I would like to in- 
quire as to the approximate length of the book review that you wrote 
on Whittaker Chambers. 



176 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Dr. Lenkeith. Sir, I think we figured it out in minutes there, and 
I think we wrote it the length that was allotted to me on the program. 
I do not have the script. I think it must have been 6 to 8 minutes. 

Senator Mundt. I think it might be interesting to have that incor- 
porated in the record, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Lenkeith. About 8 minutes, I think. 

The Chairman. I think that is an excellent idea. 

(The material referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 12" and will 
be found in the appendix on p. 223.) 

The Chairman. Are you sure you were not discharged because your 
broadcasts were too lengthy ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. There was no other 

The Chairman. In other words, you were given no reason for your 
discharge, except that they told you that you failed to cooperate, 
after you reviewed the Chambers book favorably. Is that correct? 

Dr. Lenkeith. Yes. 

The Chairman. Is there any doubt in your mind today that you 
were fired because you favorably reviewed Chambers' book ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. Well, it is not such a simple — ^it is difficult for me 
to state. The fact is this. To my knowldege — and I am not sure of 
this — I do not believe that any other use besides my own was made 
by the Voice of America of this book, which is a natural propaganda 
item. 

The Chairman. I am going to ask you a very simple question. Do 
vou think you were fired because you favorably reviewed Chambers' 
book? 

Dr. Lenkeith. I think, Senator, that I was fired because of the 
reasons that made me review that book, and that that was just the 
last 

The Chairman. And the reason that made you review it is that you 
were anti-Communist; is that right? 

Dr. Lenkeith. Yes. I felt that the program should have dignity j 
and purpose. _ . 

The Chairman. Were you in the Department after this man, i 
Auberjonois was discharged ? Did you remain on in the Department ? \ 

Dr. Lenkeith. Yes. He was not discharged. Senator. He was 
promoted. 

The Chairman, Oh, he was promoted. I thought you said he was 
removed, after complaints were filed against him. 

Dr. Lenkeith. But he was removed to a higher position. [Laugh- 
ter.] 

The Chairman. Senator McClellan? 

Senator McClellan. No questions. 

The Chairman. You may step down. i 

Thank you very much. Dr. Lenkeith. 

Your next witness? 

Mr. CoHN. Mr. Horneffer. 

The Chairman. It is now 12 o'clock. May I say for the benefit of 
the Senators and the members of the press that are here to see it 
that the description of this proposed "collective security project," if 
we can use that description, which Mr. Mathews wanted to promote, 
is described fully in the executive testimony. 

Senator McClellan. I suggest that the executive testimony, then, , 
be made a part of the permanent record. J 

f 
I 



STATE DEPARTMENT INTORMATION PROGRAM 177 

The Chairman-. It will be. I think there will be a fairly heavy 
demand for it. 

(The testimony referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 13" and will 
be found in the appendix on p. 224.) 

Mr. CoHN. Will you tell us briefly what Mr. Mathews said to you ? 

Dr. Lenkeith. He told us briefly that he was contemplating some 
day leaving the Voice of America and devoting himself to farming in 
Rockland County in an old Dutch house a group dedicated to collective 
living, which would embody the good aspects of Marxism, which anti- 
communism and communism had neglected, collective living, and he 
asked me whether I would join the group. He said the children would 
be brought up together. I, being interviewed by my employer in my 
first appearance at that office, said I had no children. He said that 
could be arranged. So I said I had no husband. He said that didn't 
matter. That could be worked out. And later he added — well, I was 
curious why he wanted me, having just met me. Anyway I asked him 
what kind of people he wanted to bring there. I was a little bit sort 
of stunned. And he told me, he said, "Well, people who have no 
dogmatic religious beliefs." 

The Chairman. We have a witness here. It is now 12 o'clock. 

I would like to temporarily, for the afternoon, break off the hearings 
on the Voice, and finally clean up this matter of the intimidation of 
other witnesses, this new order that was issued. 

We can have JMr. Ford and Mr. Boykin here at 2 o'clock. We can 
have General Smith here at 4 : 30. I believe, Mr. Counsel, we will hold 
this witness for next week. 

Are you from New York, or from Washington ? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. From New York. 

The Chairman. I hate to call you down for nothing. 

How long will his testimony be? 

Mr. CoHN. I think we could do it in 10 minutes, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand? In this matter 
now in hearing before the committee, do you solemnly swear to tell 
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you 
God? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. I do. 

Mr. CoHN. Mr. Horneffer, are you employed at the Voice of America 
right now? 

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL G. HORNEFFER, FRENCH UNIT, 
AUDIENCE MAIL, VOICE OF AMERICA 

Mr. Horneffer. I am. 

Mr. CoHN. Your name is spelled H-o-r-n-e-f -f-e-r ; is that right ? 

Mr. Horneffer. That is right. 

Mr. CoHN. Your first name is Michael ? 

Mr. Horneffer. Michael G. 

Mr. CoHN. You say you are with the Voice. In what capacity ? 

Mr. Horneffer. I am now in the French Unit, Audience Mail. 

Mr. CoHN. Were you in the French Service of the Voice of America 
when Dr. Lenkeith, the last witness, was employed there? 

Mr. Horneffer. I was. 

Mr. CoHN. You heard her testify that Mr. Auberjonois, the head 
of the French Service, had stated in the spring that Chambers' book 



178 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

was not to be touched with a 10- foot pole, because Chambers was a 
psychopath ? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. I did. As a matter of fact, I was the one who 
raised the question. 

Mr. CoHN. You raised the question as to whether or not the 
Chambers book should be used ? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. Yes. 

Mr. CoHN. Did Dr. Lenkeith correctly report to the committee, 
the answer given by Mr. Auberjonois to the effect that Mr. Chambers 
was a psychopath ? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. That is correct. He stated that we shouldn't touch 
that book with a 10-foot pole, that Mr. Chambers was a psychopathic 
case. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, let me ask you this. During the period of time 
you were with the French Service, did you encounter any scripts 
which you considered detrimental to the best interests of the United 
States of America ? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. I did. 

Mr. CoHN. And did you object to those scripts ? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. I did. 

Mr. CoHN. And have you submitted to the committee a series of 
translations from certain of these scripts indicating certain objec- 
tionable portions ? Have you prepared those ? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. Ycs ; I have. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, I have a copy of what you submitted here, and I 
just want to read you 1 or 2 sentences from each of those scripts, 
if I may. 

First of all, there was a script of January 6, 1953, written by Mar- 
celle Henry. Is that the same one referred to by Dr. Lenkeith ? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. I dou't believe so; no. 

Mr. CoiiN. I say, is that the same person, Marcelle Henry ? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. The same person ; yes, sir. 

Mr. CoHN. That is the same person ? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. That is. 

Mr. CoHN. And she wrote this script of January 6, 1953; is that 
right? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. That is correct. 

Mr. CoHN. Was that script a review concerning itself with an 
author named Edmund Wilson ? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CoHN. And did that script conclude with the words, or did it 
contain in it the words : 

Wilson Iiad the knowledge and freedom of thought necessary to differentiate 
between the authentic ideas of Karl Marx and the grossly twisted versions 
presented by Communist writers? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. Yes, sir ; this was a corrected version of the original 
text. 

Mr. CoHN. What did the original text have to say, just on that one 
point ? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. The original text written by Marcelle Henry read : 

Edmund Wilson had the knowledge and the freedom of thought which are 
necessary to differentiate between the ideas of Marx and those of the Communist 
writers who, under the pretense of propagating these ideas, only presented simpli- 
fied and dishonest versions of these ideas. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 179 

Mr. CoHN. Now, did you feel that this was wrong, and that the issue 
at the Voice of America should not be whether the only thing wrong 
with the Communists is that they were distorting Marx and not going 
forward on the authentic principles of Marx ? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. Yes, sir ; that is correct. 

Mr. CoHN. And you objected to that? 

Mr. HORNEFFER. I did. 

Mr. CoHN. Are you familiar with a script of September 13, 1952, 
which talked of a column entitled "Inside Wall Street"? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. The title is not quite accurate. 

Mr. CoHN. Well, correct me. 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. It was in a feature called the Eeview of the Week. 

Mr. CoHN. And was there some discussion of a column called Inside 
Wall Street? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. A ncwspapcr column. That is correct. 

Mr. CoiiN. Called Inside Wall Street? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. That is correct. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, in that script as it went out over the air, was Wall 
Street referred to as the den of wretchedness? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. That is correct. 

Mr. CoHN. I would now like to call your attention to a broadcast 
of December 2, 1952. Are you familiar with that broadcast ? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. Yes ; I am. 

Mr. CoHN. Who wrote that broadcast ? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. Marcellc Henry. 

Mr. CoHN. And did that broadcast concern Edna Ferber's book. 
The Giant? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. It did. 

Mr. CoHN. And in that book, did Miss Henry in the script echo some 
views concerning the people of Texas and those who lived there ? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. She did. 

Mr. CoHN. Did she first state : 

Miss Ferber knows the Texans well, whatever the Texans may say to the 
contrary? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. She did. 

Mr. CoHN. And then did she go on to say that as far as the whole 
Texan group are concerned, the men drink bourbon by the gallon, the 
women are nitwits who talk but say practically nothing, and there are 
also a lot of Mexican peons who work on the ranches and in the homes 
as servants, and who live harsh and difficult lives ? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Would you consider that good anti- Communist 
propaganda ? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. I would say it is the best anti-American propa- 
ganda. 

Mr. CoHN. And you objected, of course, to this, and many other 
scripts which you submitted to us, and which we will file. 

Senator Mundt. It is also a slur, Mr. Chairman, on the great Ee- 
publican State of Texas. 

Senator McClellan. May we ascertain at this time : You say you 
protested. I would like to know to whom, and who overruled your 
protests and reviewed these broadcasts 2 

29708— 53— pt. 3 5 



180 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. This particular broadcast, sir, I didn't have a 
chance to express any opinion on, because I was not in the French 
Section any more. 

Senator McClellan. In other words, you did not protest before 
it was broadcast? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. No, sir; I didn't. 

Senator McClellan. Well, who approved it? Who is responsible 
for it being broadcast ? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. I couldu't tell you that for a fact. 

Mr. CoHN. It was written by this Marcelle Henry ; is that correct ? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. Yes. There is a feature editor and the Chief of 
the Section 

Mr. CoHN. Who is the Chief of the Section? Would you tell that 
to Senator McClellan? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. The Chief of the Section now is Mr. Edward Ra- 
quello. 

Senator McClellan. Was he then? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. I couldu't tell you, sir. 

The Chairman. How do you spell that name ? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. E-a-q-u-c-l-l-o. 

Mr. CoHN. One last question. Did you serve in the Armed Forces 
during the war? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. Ycs, sir. 

Mr. CoHN. In what period? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. In 1941 to 1946. 

Mr. CoHN. And what particular assignment did you have in the 
Armed Forces? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. Ill Intelligence. 

Mr. CoHN. You were in Army Intelligence ? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. Ycs, sir. 

Mr. CoHN. I have no further questions. 

Senator Mundt. Is Miss Henry still employed in her same capacity 
in the Voice of America ? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. Yes, sir ; she is. 

Senator Mundt. Do you consider her a suitable employee for that 
position, on the basis of your review of her works ? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. I had various arguments with Miss Henry, start- 
ing, as I remember, in 1949, because I did not consider that her atti- 
tude was proper. And I recall very plainly one clay when she was 
very angry for some reason or other. I heard only the tail end of the 
conversation, when she referred to — and I quote "those dirty Ameri- 
cans.'' I then asked her why she didn't go back to France if she felt 
that way. And she informed me, in French, that in France she 
couldn't get as good a job as she could here. 

Senator Mundt. Were you at the conference on June 11 when the 
good doctor was fired ? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. You were not there ? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Senator Symington? 

Senator Symington. This broadcast with respect to Texas; to 
whom was it broadcast? In other words, what coverage was the 
broadcast given? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. To the French. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 181 

Senator Sy^iingtox. And how ^Ytls it done, exactly? In other 
Avords, is the broadcast in the French hinguage? 

Mr. HoKNEFFER. Yes, sir. 

Senator Symington. And it is beamed to France? Or to the rest 
of P^urope, too ? 

Mr. HoKNEFFEK. Well, to France and to the rest of Europe. Any- 
body can listen in. 

Senator Symington. In other words, it is a European broadcast 
in the French language. Is that it ? 

Mr. HoKNEFFER. Yes, sir. 

Senator Symington. Does it go anywhere else beside Europe, 
based on the beaming? 

^Ir. HoRNEFFER. I couldii't tell. I believe it goes to north Africa, 
and I know some of the broadcasts are rebroadcast to Indochina, and I 
couldn't tell which ones are and which ones are not. 

Senator Symington. In other words, some of it also goes to Asia, 
too; is that it? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. Yes, sir. 

Senator McClellan. Is this a fair sample of the way we are trying 
to create a favorable impression of America abroad? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. Ycs, sir ; I believe it is. 

The Chairman. Senator Mundt? 

Senator Mundt. Under whose direct responsibility does Miss 
Henry work ^ In other words, I am trying to find out who has the 
responsibility to say whether JNliss Henry is fired or Miss Henry shall 
woi'k, and who has the authority to say this Texas broadcast shall go 
on { he air or it shall not go on the air ? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. You sce, it is very hard for me to answer that ques- 
tion, because at the time I was with the French section I tried to find 
that out repeatedly, and I was unable to. I know there is the chief 
of the section, who is responsible. 

Senator Mundt. What was his name at the time? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. Well, there have been three in the last few years. 
The first one, when I arrived at the Voice of America, was Mr. 
Auberjonois. 

Senator Mundt. Is he still w^ith the Voice of America ? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. Ycs, sir. 

Senator Mundt, Who was the next one ? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. The next one was Mr. Walter Ducloux. 

Senator Mundt. Is he still with the Voice of America? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. And who is presently in charge? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. IVIr. Raquello. 

Senator Mundt. Of course, he is still there? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. Yes, sir. And, under the chief of the section, there 
is a news editor, and there is a feature editor. 

Senator Jackson. Did you ever ask why they had written this 
script about Texas? I understand you did not knoAv about it until 
after the broadcast had taken place. 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. No, sir. 

Senator Jackson. I mean, what conceivable reason could they give 
for such language ? Did you ask anybody about it afterward ? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. Not aLout this particular script; no, sir. 

Senator Mundt. It was a book review^ ? Edna Ferber had used the 
language, and they were quoting it in the script? 



182 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Mr. HoRNEFTER. Yes, sir. I was not in the French section, and I 
only saw the French script which came to me. 

The Chairman. May 1 interrupt ? I understand this language used 
in the script is a summarization of things said by Ferber after first 
approving what Ferber said. 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. Yes, sir. I have not read the book; so I cannot 
tell you how accurate it is. 

The Chairman. Do I make myself clear ? Do I understand in this 
particular broadcast this Miss or Mrs. Henry first stated that Ferber 
knew about the Texans; that, despite what they said, she was an 
authority ? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. I beg your pardon, sir ? 

The Chairman. I understand that the person writing the broad- 
cast approved this language, which in effect summarized what Ferber 
said about the Texans. 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. Ycs, sir. 

Mr. Chairman. Let me ask you this: If I were a member of the 
Communist Party, and I wanted to discredit America and further the 
Communist cause, could you think of any better job I could do helping 
out the Communist cause than by beaming to Europe the type of 
material which you have just described? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. No, sir ; not possibly. 

The Chairman. In other words, you feel we are doing a great service 
to the Communist cause in beaming this material out in the so-called 
fight against communism ? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. Ycs, sir. 

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Horneffer. You are an example 
of the good people we have over on the Voice. Thank God we have 
you and people like you over there, or the situation would be much 
worse than it is. I know on this particular desk you have been fighting 
a hopeless battle, and on some of the desks we have had very much 
better results than on this desk. 

I have been very much disturbed over the fact that in exposing the 
subversion and the Communists on some desks it may appear that this 
committee is attempting to make an attack upon the idea of a Voice of 
America. I think the idea is excellent. I think it has been very badly 
done in some sections up to this date. 

Senator Mundt. In the process that you operate under, up in New 
York City, you also have a monitoring system, do you not, to get 
reports back from France as to the reaction of the French to the 
broadcast ? 

Mr. Horneffer. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Do you see those monitor reports ? 

Mr. Horneffer. I used to see them when I was in the French Section. 

Senator Mundt. I wonder if the reaction of the French as referred 
to here in those reports indicates the fact that they are actually doing 
the kind of damage which I am sure must be being done over there. 

Mr. Horneffer. No, sir; not to my knowledge. And, if I may 
explain why : 

We have a radio officer in Paris. However, he is not the monitor 
of the programs, the French programs. The monitor is a Frencliman, 
who does not know about our aims. As a matter of fact, from the tone 
of his reports, I imagine he knows very little about America. His 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 183 

reports have been, on the whole, with possibly a very, very few excep- 
tions, entirely favorable, even when there was very damaging material 
going on the air. 

Senator Mundt. In other words, you do not see the letters the 
Frenchmen write. You get your information channeled through some 
particular French monitor; is that right? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. I havc seen the letters, until September of last fall. 
I saw all the reports that came in. There was one program which I 
considei'ed very damaging to us, which was entirely approved by that 
monitor. He thought it was excellent. That program was an inter- 
view at a French scliool in New York, and the interviewer asked if 
there was any culture in America. And the head of the school an- 
swered, "Yes; I think so. But, of course, it is quite different from 
French culture." 

Senator Jackson. Has tliis same technique been used before on these 
broadcasts? In other words, without the commentator stating his or 
her personal opinions ; that they instead have quoted from a book that 
would give a poor picture of American life? In other words, it is like 
my saying, "I am not saying that Texas is bad, but here is what the 
author says about Texas," and then proceeding to read from the book ? 
Mr. HoRNEFFER. I would say, sir, that both are true. 
Senator Jackson. But has that technique been used before ? 
Mr. HoRNEFFER. Ycs, sir. 

Senator Jackson. In other words, so that the person who is doing 
the writing is in the clear, using the quotes, however, from books that 
are damaging? 
Mr. HoRNEFFER. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Jackson. Do you recall any somewhat similar instances 
where that occurred? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. Of quoting from a book ? 

Senator Jackson. Quoting from a book and giving a damaging 
picture of the United States. 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. Yes, sir. I have a more recent example of that; 
a book review, again by Marcelle Henry, which went on the air on 
January 22. It was a review of The Second Happiest Day, by John 
Phillips, and the way it was presented is this : 

Critics are already voicing their admiration : A great book — a novel one can 
read for amusement and information at the same time. * * * The work of 
a young man of great talent. * * * And in connection with him the name 
of Scott Fitzgerald is again mentioned. . But have you read Fitzgerald? One 
must read him to understand a strange and fascinating period of American life, 
a period when youth was jittery and pleasure-mad, when le jass-hot was the 
rage, when savage dances created a frenzy in the dancehalls and speakeasies — 
where, during prohibition, homemade liquor was drunk. A weltschmertz was 
torturing youth, throwing it into a vain sensuality, in search of intoxicating sen- 
sations. "Those sad young men" one used to say about the young Americans of 
1920-30, who were also called "the lost generation." 

And she goes on to say this : 

And now, here we find in the book of John Phillips, just out, another lost 
generation, young lives in search of pleasure. * * * Those who belong to 
what we call "society" are the descendants of the Mayflower Pilgrims, all those 
who have distinguished themselves in the history of the Nation ; and, naturally, 
those we could describe as "the aristocracy of money," the millionaires who 
hve on Fifth Avenue. * * * if j tell you all this, it's only because this is the 
environment John Phillips describes * * * and with him we visit the col- 



184 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

leges established for the sons of prominent families, the luxurious night clubs, 
all those events which otherwise are only mentioned in society columns. * * * 

Senator Jackson. Well, in the balance of the review, was there any 
balancing off about the good side of America ? In other words, they 
nsed the book in that case to give, like we would find in any country, 
the bad side. 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. No, sir. There is only one possible redeeming 
feature in that script : that she does slip in that "to conclude, here 
we have a whole group of young people of the American 'between the 
wars^ generation. * * *" 

Senator Jackson. This was the "roaring twenties," I suppose, or 
whatever. 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. Well, as I understand it, the Phillips "lost gen- 
eration," "lost youth," comes after the Scott Fitzgerald one, so it 
would take you up to the war, I imagine. But the way the whole 
thing is prsented, this can be very easily forgotten, and this is a 
picture of American youth as of now. 

Senator Jackson. And it gives a bad picture for that period. 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. It most certainly does, sir. 

Furthermore, I don't believe that in the "roaring twenties" it was 
a correct picture of American youth as such. It may have been part 
of American youth. 

Senator Jackson. But the tendency in that review was to paint a 
picture that applied generally to all of American youth; is that true? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. Ycs, sir. 

The Chairman. In June of 1950, Malik made a speech before the 
U. N. Do you recall that that speech was broadcast by the Voice, 
with no comment^ay whatsover in regard to it ^ 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. Ycs, sir. The speech, as I recall, was broadcast 
at the U. N. at 3 : ?>0 in the afternoon, and I was on duty then. It was 
a Saturda^y. The Chief of the Section. ]\Ir. Auberjonois, happened to 
be there at the time. I showed him the text of this broadcast and 
asked him if he could get a directive, if we had a directive, as to how 
to handle it. He said he didn't know. He called up the Policy Di- 
rector. And the directive I finally got, and the text I had to prepare 
to go on the air that same day was simply a rebroadcast of that speech. 
We shortened the beginning of it, which was just a diatribe against 
America, the usual thing. But we had no comment whatsoever, no 
explanation, no answer, nothing at all. 

The Chairman. In other words, the speech was rebroadcast under 
the sponsorship of Voice of America ? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. Yes, sir. It was free publicity for Mr. Malik. 

Senator MuNDT. Do we normally broadcast speeches of the Kussian 
Communists on the Voice of America that way? Or was that an 
exception ? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. No, sir. It was not an exception, in the sense that 
in our news programs we gave the statements made by the Russians, 
the Soviet, in the U. N. 

Senator Mundt. Do you know whether we have an arrangement 
with the Russians so that we give them broadcast fees for that? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. No, sir ; I don't know. 

The Chairman. Any further questions ? 

Senator Jackson? 

Senator Jackson. No. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 185 

The Chairman. Tliank you very, very much. 

Let me ask you, in conchision, one hnal question. How long has 
this situation been existent over in the Voice, this situation you de- 
scribed ^ Ever since you have been there ? 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. Yes, sir; I would say so. Except that I arrived 
in the Voice in 1949, and most of the people were new in their job 
then, and to my knowledge they sort of felt their way around. And 
they have become bolder by the j^ear. 

The Chairman. Do you think that this discrediting of America 
and forwarding the cause of communism is done because of stupidity 
and incompetence, or do you think it is being deliberately done ^ 

Mr. HoRNEFFER. At first, sir, I thought it was sheer stupidity and 
incompetence. I started having very, very grave doubts about it, oh, 
a yeai- or even 2 years ago. 

The Chairman. Now, let me ask you this. 

Woidd you say that instead of calling this the Voice of America, 
so far as the desk you described is concerned, a more appropriate title 
would be the Voice of Moscow ? 

Mr. Horneffer. Or the Voice of International Communism. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

We will recess now until 2 : 30 this afternoon, at which time there 
will be a public session, and we will have an executive session at 4 : 30, 
with (Jen. Bedell Smith. 

(Whereupon, at 12 : 15 p. m. Friday, February 20, 1953, the hearing 
was recessed subject to the call of the Chair.) 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM— VOICE 
OF AMERICA 



SATUBDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1953 

United States Senate, 
Senate Permanent Subcommittee on 

Investigations of the Committee 

ON Government Operations, 

New York, N. Y. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40, agreed 
to January 30, 1953, in room 318 of the Federal Building, Senator 
Joseph R. McCarthy, chairman, presiding. 

Present: Senators Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin; 
Charles E. Potter, Republican, Micliigan ; John L. McClellan, Demo- 
crat, Arkansas; Henry M. Jackson, Democrat, Washington; Stuart 
Symington, Democrat, Missouri. 

Present also: Roy Cohn, chief counsel; Donald Surine, assistant 
counsel : David Schine, chief consultant ; Henry Hawkins, investigator. 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. Is Dr. Glazer 
here '( 

Doctor, would you stand up and raise your right hand? 

In this matter now in hearing before the committee, do you solemnly 
swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and iiothing but the truth, 
so help you God ? 

Dr. Glazer. I do. I 

The Chairman. Will you sit right over there. Doctor, if you will? 

Before the witness commences to testify, I would like to comment 
upon an article m one of the national magazines this week. This is 
intended as no criticism of the magazine. It is one of the better 
ones. It carries a question and answer series with Dr. Compton, 
the former head of the Voice. I note the statement : 

Among the available experts McCarthy" has not yet called is Dr. Wilson M. 
Compton, who recently resigned after serving for a year as Director of the 
International Infoi'mation Administration * * *. 

I think the record should show that Dr. Compton was in executive 
session on February 16, at which time he testified for 48 pages. He 
and General Stoner were in public session on February 17, at which 
time the testimony of General Stoner and Dr. Compton and some 
other witnesses, who were interrupted from time to time, covered 
106 pages. 

I think it should be clear that this is an error ; that Dr. Compton has 
been called. 

187 



29708— 53— pt. 3- 



188 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

I note also that Dr. Compton, the former head of the Voice, makes 
tliis statement, in regard to the committee. He says : 

They've heard witnesses of their own selection. So far they have refrained 
from putting on the record the facts which would show why the decisions which 
the witnesses are criticizing were made. 

I think we should make it clear that we have called a number of wit- 
nesses suggested by Dr. Compton. He was on the stand himself. 
General Stoner, whom he asked to have heard, was heard. Charles 
Carrigan, suggested by Dr. Compton, was heard. Reed Harris, who 
was suggested by the Department, was heard. 

We told Dr. Compton at the time to suggest the names of any wit- 
nesses he desired to, as we would be glad to hear all of them. I think 
we made it clear then, and if not we want to make it doubly clear now, 
that any witness, or any individual, who is adversely mentioned in 
testimony, will have a full opportunity to appear in public session 
and make such statement and give such testimony as he desires. 

One of the matters upon which the committee was originally deeply 
concerned was the construction of the two key radio transmitters, one 
known as Baker West, the other known as Baker East, Baker West 
located in the State of Washington near Seattle, and Baker East 
located in North Carolina. The engineers testified that if the con- 
struction were to continue on both of those transmitting facilities, it 
would result in a loss of about $18 million. They testified that they 
were located within the so-called magnetic storm area and being 
located in that area, the radio signals would be weak; that it would 
take a tremendous amount of power, tremendously powerful equip- 
ment, to reach the target area, that is, Russia and the satellite nations. 

We asked the Bureau of Standards to conduct a study upon this 
subject, called a propagation study. I should mention that the Voice 
of America did not ask for such a study. It was available to them 
free. Instead of that, they asked for a study by MIT, Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology; and while MIT is very well equipped to 
'conduct a number of studies, apparently they are newcomers in this 
field ; at least, they have not rendered a report up to this time, although 
the report has run to roughly $600,000 on Baker East and other 
projects. 

I have before me today the report from the Bureau of Standards, 
which they just handed me. It is a very lengthy report, and I think 
v\e should read into the record one small section of this report. Here, 
i hey are referring to Baker West. 

To deliver a satisfactory signal on at least 90 i)ercent of the days, at a given 
time of the day, a transmitter located at Seattle would require about 50 times 
the power of a transmitter at San Francisco or San Diego. 

Tliat is the Bureau of Standards report. 

The entire report will be marked as an exhibit and made a part of 
the record. 

(The report referred to was marked as exhibit No. 14, and will be 
found in the appendix on p. 224.) 

The Chairman. The first witness will be Dr. Glazer. 

I am going to ask the Senators, if they will, to bear with me, and 
have the counsel first go through what he considers the pertinent testi- 
mony of the doctor, and, if that is agreeable, then open it to question- 
ing by the Senators. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 189 

Is that O.K.? 

Mr. Counsel ? 

Mr, CoiiN. Would you give us your full name, please ? 

TESTIMONY OF DR. SIDNEY GLAZER, CHIEF, HEBREW SERVICE, 
VOICE or AMERICA 

Dr. Glazer. Sidney Glazer. 

Mr. CoHN. Sidney Glazer ? 

Dr. Glazer. Yes. 

Mr. CoHN. And where are you currently employed ? 

Dr. Glazer. I am now employed in the New York offices of the 
Voice of America. 

Mr. CoiiN. What position do you hold with the Voice of America, 
Dr. Glazer? 

Dr. Glazer. I am Chief of the Hebrew Service. 

The Chairman. May I interrupt ? 

Doctor, will you get nearer to the microphone? Is that a loud- 
speaker, incidentally? 

Will you get nearer to it, and try and speak a little louder? 

Mr. CoHN. You say you are Chief of the HebreAv Service of the 
Voice of iVmerica ? 

Dr. Glazer. That is correct. 

Mr. CoHN. And for how long a period of time have you held that 
post, Dr. Glazer? 

Dr. Glazer. Just about 2 years now. 

Mr. CoHN. And how long a period of time have you been with the 
Voice of America ? 

Dr. Glazer. Almost 5 years. 

Mr. CoHN. Would you tell us just what the Hebrew Service of the 
Voice of America is ? 

Dr. Glazer. The Hebrew Service of the Voice of America is a unit 
of some 6 full-time and 4 part-time people engaged in preparing 30 
minutes of broadcast material beamed to Israel in the Hebrew lan- 
guage every day. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, do these broadcasts reach the State of Israel ? 

Dr. Glazer. You mean are they heard? 

Mr. CoiiN. Are they heard in Israel ? 

Dr. Glazer. Yes; they are. 

Mr. CoHN. Are they heard by audiences speaking the Hebrew lan- 
guage in any other part of the world as well ? 

Dr. Glazer. Yes ; they are. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, you are the Chief of this Service. Wlio is your 
superior? 

Dr. Glazer. Gerald Dooher. 

The Chairman, Is Mr. Gerald Dooher here? 

Mr. CoHN. I think Mr. Dooher is here today, Mr, Chairman, 

The Chairman. I think it might be a good idea to have your su- 
perior step up here and take a seat beside you. He may want to com- 
ment on some of the testimony you have. 

Mr. Dooher ? 

Mr, Dooher. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman, Would you raise your right hand and be sworn? 
In this matter now in hearing before the committee, do you solemnly 



190 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 
help you God ? 

Mr. DooHER. I do. 

The Chairman. Would you pull a chah- up beside Dr. Glazer, Mr. 
Dooher ? 

Incidentally, how do you spell your name, Mr. Dooher ? 

TESTIMONY OF GEEALD F. P. DOOHER, ACTING CHIEF, NEAR EAST, 
SOUTH ASIA, AND AFRICAN DIVISION, VOICE OF AMERICA 
(TAKEN CONCURRENTLY WITH THAT OF DR. SIDNEY GLAZER. 
CHIEF, HEBREW SERVICE, VOICE OF AMERICA) 

Mr. Dooher. D-o-o-h-e-r. 

The Chairman. And your first name, Mr. Gerald? 

Mr. Dooher. Gerald F. P. 

The Chairman. And your title is what ? 

Mr. Dooher. I am Acting Chief of the Near East, South Asia, 
and African Division of the Voice of America. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Cohn. Now, Dr. Glazer, during the period of time you have 
been Chief of the Hebrew Service, what has been your conception 
of the duty and obligation of the Hebrew Service of the Voice of 
America? 

Dr. Glazer. We have had a twofold aim, or ratlier the American 
policy that we are carrying out has two major objectives in Israel: 
First, to counter Russian propaganda, and second, to create an 
atmosphere that would be conducive to the development of stable 
and peaceful relations between Israel and her Arab neighbors. 

Mr. Cohn. Now, have you had any personal experience with 
methods of countering Communist propaganda? 

The Chairman. May I interrupt? I would like to say to the 
photographers that we have a rule that no flash pictures will be taken 
during the hearing. It disrupts the witness' testimony, makes it dif- 
ficult for him to testify. We also have a rule that the photographers 
not get so near to the witness that he is more conscious of them than 
he is of his testimony. 

Are you taking flash pictures? 

May I ask the witness : Does this disturb you ? 

Dr. Glazer. No, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Cohn. Dr. Glazer, have you personally made any study of 
Communist techniques of propaganda? 

Dr. Glazer. Yes, I have. 

Mr. Cohn. And under whose auspices did you make such a study? 

Dr. Glazer. The study was ordered by a subcommittee of the 
House Foreign Affairs Committee back in 1947, and after sev- 
eral months of research the results were published in a formal pub- 
lication of the United States Government. I happen to have it with 
me now. It is called The Strategy and Tactics of World Communism : 
The Near East. 

Mr. Cohn. I might ask you this: Based on your familiarity with 
the techniques of Communist propaganda, what was your conception, 
in your position as Chief of the Hebrew Service, as to the attitude of 
the Soviet Union toward Jews and other minority groups? 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 191 

Dr. Glazer. Well, it was very clear to me, even before the latest 
manifestations of Soviet hostility toward Jews and other minorities, 
that Soviet policy was aimed at the suppression and, if necessary, 
complete extinction of any group threatening in any way the regime 
imposed by the Communists in 1918. And I felt it my deepest obliga- 
tion to do everything I could to expose this policy, to make it clear 
beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt that this not only was aimed 
at" the particular small groups that were scattered throughout the 
Soviet Union, but was a prelude to attack on and ultimate domination, 
if it were achievable, over the rest of the world. 

The Chairman. In other words, you were not taken in by the Com- 
munist propaganda to the effect that they had civil liberties in Russia 
and that the rights of all minorities were so scrupulously honored. 

Dr. Glazer. No. I was not. A very early indication of their true 
intentions was the attempt to suppress the Hebrew language, which, 
even 30 years ago, was deemed inimical to Soviet interests. And since 
then nothing has taken place to induce me to conclude that there 
has been any change of heart on the part of the Communists. 

The only question in my mind was when there would be aggressive 
overt physical violence. Long before the Prague trial which brought 
Soviet anti-Semitism out into the light, attacks on such minorities 
as the Moslems throughout the Soviet Union seemed to me tremen- 
dously significant and made it clear that it was only a question of time 
until they would get to the Jews and other religious and ethnic groups. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, you say that this was your belief at that time. 
Did there come a time, within the last few months, when the Soviet 
Union took certain overt physical acts which confirmed the belief 
you had held? 

The Chairman. Mr. Counsel, I think that is public knowledge. 
The committee will take notice of that without even any testimony 
on it. 

In other words, there is no question about the fact that late last fall 
the Communists started to execute Jewish people on the ground that 
they were Jewish people. I do not believe we need testimony on that. 

Mr. CoHN. Do 3^ou recall approximately when this occurred. Dr. 
Glazer ? 

Dr. Glazer. Yes, late in November of 1952. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, would you describe for the committee the effect 
of these acts of the Soviet Union on the Hebrew Service of the Voice 
of America ? How did that affect the type program you would send 
over to Israel and the type issue you would have for those who lis- 
tened to the Hebrew-language broadcasts throughout the world ? 

Dr. Glazer. It caused us to change our whole concept of pro- 
graming practically overnight. It was a relatively simple thing to 
do, because we were prepared for it. As I said a moment ago, it was 
only a question of time when we would put into effect the various 
plans prepared to take care of the contingency when it arose. 

The Chairman. In other words, when the Communists became 
openly anti-Semitic, you felt that you had a tremendous propaganda 
"weapon handed to you ? 

Dr. Glazer. Yes, we did. 

The Chairman. The weapon of truth, which you could bring not 
only to the Jewish people but minority groups throughout the world 



192 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

who had been sold on the idea that communism meant lack of dis- 
crimination and complete freedom for all minorities. Is that right? 

Dr. Glazer. Yes, that was the propaganda line. 

The Chairman, Then will you tell us what happened when you 
started to use that propaganda weapon? 

Dr. Glazer. May I mention that our own conception of the way to 
capitalize on the opportunity was reinforced by a cable from the 
American Embassy in Tel-Aviv, which, quite independently, sug- 
gested a similar line of approach. 

Since this cable coincided so closely with what we already had in 
mind, it was very easy for us to implement the Embassy directive. 

What makes this cable particularly significant is the fact 
that in the approximately 1 year and a half of the existence of the 
Hebrew service, we had not received a single specific directive from 
the Embassy regarding counterpropaganda. We did get many mes- 
sages regarding other aspects of our program, but never until this 
moment one bearing directly on the Russian problem. 

The Chairman. In other words, the Embassy at this time agreed 
with you that you had a good propaganda weapon 

Dr. Glazer. Yes, the atmosphere then was so right, so perfect, for 
using it. 

The Chairman. Let me finish — that you had a perfect propaganda 
weapon ; that by disseminating the truth, you could very effectively 
fight communism in that area ? 

Dr. Glazer. Yes. 

The Chairman. There was no misunderstanding between your desk 
and the Embassy in Israel at that time ? 

Dr. Glazer. None at all. I have the message, if you would care for 
me to 

Mr. CoiiN. You made a copy of the cable? 

Dr. Glazer. Yes. 

The Chairman. We will mark it and make it an exhibit. 

(The cable referred to was marked as exhibit No. 15 and may be 
found in the files of the subcommittee. ) 

The Chairman. You may proceed, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, following the receipt of this cable confirming your 
own belief, did von make elaborate plans to take advantage of this 
great issue that had been presented, the issue of the true story con- 
cerning Soviet persecution of the Jews and other minority groups ? 

Dr. Glazer. We did, indeed. And, for the next week, practically 
every minutes of our daily 30 minutes Avas devoted to expressing the 
reaction of the American people to this horrible development. We 
used some very effective materials from official statements of the Presi- 
dent, the Secretary of State, and other members of the Government 
and Members of the Congress, not only quotations, but their actual 
voices through tape recordings. Exceedingly effective was a roundup 
of press reaction from all over the country, indicating American revul- 
sion at this final blow — 

The Chairman. May I interrupt? You and I have both been re- 
ferring to a propaganda weapon I think we perhaps should refer to 
it as a counterpropaganda weapon, in that the Communist propa- 
ganda has been, in that area and all other areas of the world, that they 
give all religious and racial groups complete freedom, and this was 
a weapon to counter that Communist propaganda. Eight? 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 193 

I)r. Glazer. That is right. 

The Chairman. So I think we should perhaps refer to it as a coiin- 
terpropagancla weapon. 

Mr, CoHN. In other words, Doctor, would it be fair to say that if 
anything this was the time to increase and step up the Hebrew broad- 
cast throughout the Avorld, to take full advantage of this issue created 
by the Soviet purges ? 

Dr. Glazer. It certainly was. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, Dr. Glazer, did the elements within the State De- 
partment in Washington support a stepping up of the Hebrew-lan- 
guage programs to take advantage of this issue? 

Dr. Glazer. They did not. In fact, they did, I might say, exactly 
the opposite. 

Mr. CoiiN. They did exactly the opposite? Did they ask you to 
cut down? 

The Chairman. Could we make it clear that this was prior to Janu- 
ary 20, 1953 ? This was during the Acheson regime. 

Dr. Glazer. So far from going along with what seemed to us the 
obvious, almost elementary step of intensifying our activity at the 
time, we were ordered to be taken off the air completely. 

]Mr. CoHN. Do you mean to say they ordered the close-down of the 
entire Hebrew Language Service of the Voice of America? 

Dr. Glazer. Exactly. 

Mr. CoHN. That would have meant the end of programs originating 
from your section to Israel and to other Hebrew-speaking people 
throughout the world? 

Dr. Glazer. That is exactly what it would have meant. 

Mr. CoiiN. Is it your testimony that this came just after you were 
presented with this splendid issue of minority persecution by the 
Soviet Union ? 

Dr. Glazer. This news reached us within 10 days after the Prague 
trial verdicts were announced. 

The Chairman. Senator McClellan ? 

Senator McClellan. I wanted to ask you: Who issued the order? 
You say you were ordered to close down the service. 

Dr. Glazer. The order was never issued to me directly. I was only 
told about it, unofficially. 

Senator ]\IcClellan. Who told you? Let us get the source of 
responsibility established. 

Mr. Glazier. I was told it unofficially by my chief, Mr Dooher. 

Senator McClellan. He told you unofficially. 

Dr. Glazer. Unofficially. 

Senator INIcClellan. Do you know the source of his orders or 
instructions? 

The Chairman. Perhaps, Senator McClellan, we should have Mr. 
Dooher testify on that point. He is under oath. Would you care to 
direct your questions to him? 

Senator McClellan. I would be glad to have Mr. Dooher testify. 

Mr. Dooher. Senator, the order was in the form of a directive from 
the International Information Administration in Washington. The 
order was signed by Mr. Keed Harris, who was the Acting Adminis- 
trator of the Administration at the time of the absence of Dr. Compton, 
who was in Europe. 

Senator McClellan. Do you have a copy of the order? 



194 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

The Chairman. Would you speak a little louder, Mr. Dooher ? 

Mr. Dooher. I have a quotation from the order. 

Senator McClellan. Would you make that a part of the record? 

Mr. Dooher. Would you care for me to read it ? 

Senator McClellan. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that he read only 
that part which is pertinent to this issue. 

The Chairman. I would say that if the order is lengthy we are 
interested in the fact that they ordered you to do away with the 
Hebrew desk and that the order is signed by Reed Harris. That is 
sufficient. 

We will mark that as an exhibit and make it a part of the record. 

(The order referred to was marked as exhibit No. 16 and may he 
found in the files of the subcommittee.) 

Senator McClellan. Wiat is the date of the order ? 

Mr. Dooher. The date of the order is the 5th of December, received 
in New York on December 9. 

The Chaikman. Incidentally, Mr. Dooher, may I ask this question : 
I have been reading about these disgruntled employees who have been 
testifying. Are you by any means a disgruntled employee? 

Mr. Dooher. No, Senator. As a matter of fact, I suppose I am 
what you might call a "gruntled" employee because I have just been 
promoted to the position of Acting Chief of my Division in the State 
Department, and I have made such a remarkable rise in the last few 
years that I am rather suspicious of myself. I think I had better look 
into my background. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Go ahead, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Cohn. May I address some questions to Mr. Dooher? 

Mr. Dooher, you say you have heard what Dr. Glazer, here, has said. 
Did you share his view that the Soviet purges created a need for step- 
ping up and intensifying the Hebrew-language broadcasts to get this 
message — this true message — to the world ? 

Mr. Dooher. I shared his view completely. 

Mr. Cohn. And what was your reaction to the news that Mr. Harris 
in the State Department was ordering the closing down of the entire 
Hebrew language service at the very moment? 

Mr. Dooher. Well, to me, that was the most shocking thing I had 
heard in my 8 years in the Department of State. 

Mr. Cohn. Wliat would the practical effect of Mr. Harris' order 
have been on your attempts to counter Communist propaganda, if it 
had been carried out, in your opinion, as Chief of this Division ? 

Mr. Dooher. Well, in my opinion, the cessation of the Hebrew 
broadcasts would have been a well-struck blow in the Communist cause. 

Mr. Cohn. Now, after word was received from Washington that 
such an order was forthcoming, do you know whether or not an 
immediate protest by cable was made by the Voice of America in 
New York to Mr. Harris? ' 

Mr. Dooher. I do. There was such an order. 

Mr. Cohn. And am I quoting accurately when I read from a cable 
which has been produced before this committee, dated December 4, 
1952 : 

The question is whether the Information Administration, in making this order, 
has taken into account the following factors: (a) Tel Aviv has .I'ust asked us to 
use Voice of America full blast on the recent Czech anti-Semitic purges, and 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 195 

(b) while anti-Semitism flourishes behind the Iron Curtain, and where a tre- 
mendously important political issue has been handed the Hebrew desk, is this 
the time to suspend Hebrew broadcasts? 

Mr. DooHEE. That is a correct quotation. 

Mr. CoHN. And was a cable received in reply on the same day, read- 
ing as follows, from the State Department in Washington: 

Confli-ming our telephone conversation with regard to your question for 
Reed Harris * * * Harris will send memorandum instructing suspension of 
Hebrew-language broadcasts as soon as possible. He states that this was clearly 
a PAB decision. 

That means a budgetary decision, does it not? 

Mr. DooHER. That means a Program Allocations Board decision, 
which is the budgeting organization of the information progi'am. 

The Chairman. Would you speak a little louder, Mr. Dooher? 

Mr. DooHER. That means a Program Allocations Board decision, 
the Program Allocations Board being the budgeting gToup of the 
information program. 

Mr. CoHN. Do you know whether or not Mr. Harris was the one 
•who was presiding over the Program Allocations Board at this time 'i 

Mr. Dooher, To my own knowledge, I do not know, sir. 

The Chairman. Let me ask the staff. 

Have you established the fact that Reed Harris was the Acting 
Chairman of that Board ? 

Mr. CoHN. It has been so testified. Yes, we have had that in testi- 
mony, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. And Reed Harris was second to Dr. Compton in 
command ? 

Mr. CoHN. At this time he was first in command. He was the 
Acting Administrator. He is today second in command for the entire 
information program. 

The Chairman. May I say that if it meets with the approval of the 
other Senators, Reed Harris will be called to testify at 10 : 30 Tuesday 
morning in Washington. We have a considerable amount of dis- 
turbing evidence in regard to Mr. Harris, and I think that, No. 1, we 
need his testimony, and. No. 2, 1 think he will want to testify, and No. 
3, he has been suggested by Dr. Compton as a necessary witness, I 
believe. 

Mr. Cohn. He has. 

The Chairman. So if it meets with the approval of the Senators, 
we will hear him Tuesday morning at 10 : 30 in a public hearing in 
Washington. 

Mr. CoHN (continuing) : 

that this was a PAB decision, and that nothing new has happened to change that 
decision. The cable from Tel Aviv regarding the Prague trials does not alter the 
decision, particularly in light of the current budget situation. 

Mr, DooHER. That is correct. 

Mr. CoiiN. I might ask you at this point, Mr. Dooher: You are 
familiar with the budget situation to a certain extent, are you not? 

Mr. DooHER. I am to a large extent, particularly with reference to 
the Near East broadcasts. 

Mr. CoHN. Was this argument that a substantial saving of money 
would be effected a valid argument ? Did you consider that to be a 
valid argument? 



196 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Mr. DooHER. I considered it ridiculous. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, following this cable — — 

Tlie Chairman. You said you considered it ridiculous? 

Mr. DooHER. I considered it ridiculous, yes. 

Mr. CoHN. Following this cable from Mr. Harris, I think you have 
told us that on December 5 a formal order was made directing imme- 
diate suspension of all Hebrew-language broadcasts, and that order 
was received December 9 in New York. Is that correct ? 

Mr. DooHER. That is correct. 

The Chairman. May I interrupt again, Mr. Counsel? 

You said you considered that ridiculous. Will you tell us why? 
In other words, Mr. Harris said, "We are suspending the Hebrew 
desk because of the budget," and you said you considered that ridicu- 
lous. Will you tell us why ? 

Mr. DooHER. Yes, sir. I was later informed by our accountants 
that the saving would have been approximately $30,000, which was 
a very small sum in view of the tremendous work to be done by the 
Hebrew Service during this particularly crucial time. 

The Chairman. Do I understand that you had contracts with the 
people involved, you had to pay them under those contracts, and you 
would have had to transport them considerable distances ? 

I see you have raised your hand. Dr. Glazer. Will you give us a 
picture on that? 

First, let me say this. I am not sure if we have your titles and jobs 
clearly in the record. Dr. Glazer, you are head of the Hebrew desk? 

Dr. Glazer. The Hebrew Service ; yes. 

The Chairman. You are the topman there. And Mr. Dooher, your 
title is what, again? 

Mr. DooHER. Acting Chief of the Near East, South Asian and 
African Division. 

The Chairman. I see. So you are the superior to Dr. Glazer, who 
is head of the Hebrew desk. Is that right ? 

Mr. Dooher. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I am sorry, Doctor. Will you proceed ? 

Dr. Glazer. One of the reasons why the alleged saving of $30,000 
seemed to us ridiculous is connected with the aspect of the 
work known as contract for overseas employees. We found from 
experience that we can't always locate in the United States people 
with the requisite linguistic skill and radio talent to do the first-class 
work that we must have. And so a system was established whereby we 
could recruit people from overseas. ^ This is true of many desks where 
such a need can be demonstrated. 

In the case of my own, I was able to demonstrate that need, because, 
contrary to the general impression, competent modern Hebrew lin- 
guists are not readily available in this country. There are many, 
of course, who understand the language but who do not know it well 
enough 

The Chairman. I wonder if you are not getting away from my 
question. 

Dr. Glazer. I am getting to it. So we got two men from overseas 
for this purpose. This necessarily involved our paying transporta- 
tion for themselves and their families on a 2-year contract. They 
had been with us something like 8 months, and we would then have 
had to pay their transportation back, which would have eaten up 



STATE departmp:nt information program 197 

almost a third to one-half of the savings that we were supposed to 
have made. 

The Chairman. In other words, making a long story short, this 
alleged saving of $30,000 would not have been an actual saving'^ 

Dr. Glazer. No ; it would not. 

The Chairman. Because much of it would have been used up be- 
cause of the contract obligations i 

Dr. Glazer. Correct. 

The Chairman. Those already taken on by the Voice? 

Dr. Glazer. Yes. 

The Chairman. So that you feel that the claim that this was so 
that they could save $30,000 was a phony, or not a valid claim? 

Dr. Glazer. It was phony in another respect, because there wouldn't 
have been left even $15,000 after we deducted the contract funds if we 
carried through their suggestion to use these savings in other ways, 
namely, to prepare transcription programs for use on the local radio. 

These programs are not produced automatically. They cost a 
great deal of money. In fact, we have demonstrated that a transcrip- 
tion executed by commercial producers costs 3 to 4 tunes as much as 
when it is done by our full-time people. 

The Chairman. I often wonder why these Stevenson Democrats 
are so long winded. 

I think, in view of the great screaming and shouting that we have 
been using disgruntled employees who want to get even with the pre- 
vious administration, it should be made clear here that Dr. Glazer, who 
has a great reputation for running the Hebrew desk, is very well 
known as a liberal, and made the serious mistake of being openly a 
Stevenson Democrat. Eight ? 

Dr. Glazer. Well, not openly. 

The Chairman. And I am sure you would not consider that a 
mistake. 

Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, I wonder. Is this a political 
meeting ? 

The Chairman. No ; I mention that only because of the tremendous 
amount of screaming I have been hearing that we are using disgruntled 
employees. We have here two very successful employees before us 
today, men who are devoted to the idea that the Voice can do an out- 
standing job if properly run. 

Is that right 'i 

Dr. Glazer. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And I think no one can question the fact that your 
desk has been doing an excellent job, an outstanding job. 

Mr. Counsel ? 

Mr. CoHN. Mr. Dooher, this order of Reed Harris was received in 
New York on December 9. Now, are you familiar with a memoran- 
dum that was sent to Mr. Harris, dated December 11, 1952, by Mr. 
Francis and Mr. Puhan in behalf of the Voice of America in New 
York protesting this order ? 

Mr. DooHER. I have seen that memorandum. 

Mr. CoHN. And is this an accurate quote from that memorandum 
to Mr. Harris : 

Wliile complying with your order, we feel it incumbent upon us to point out 
to you again that the public-relations problem, of which you say that you are 
aware, has not been correctly assessed in Washington. We feel that the re- 
percussions following your order will be severe. 



198 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Mr. DooHER. That, to my recollection, is a correct quotation. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, following this memorandum, did the Voice in New 
York agree fully to abide by this direction from Mr. Harris ? 

Mr. DooHER. The Voice accepted the directive, but immediately 
made a telephoned protest to Mr. Alfred Morton, the head of the 
Voice, who was in Europe, and through him I believe to Dr. Compton, 
who also was in Europe. 

Mr. CoHN. And through the protests made by telephone abroad to 
Dr. Compton and Mr. Morton, were the people in the Voice in New 
York able to secure a suspension of Mr. Harris' order until Dr. Comp- 
ton and Mr. Morton had returned to the United States? 

Mr. DooHER. We received the authority to continue the broadcasts 
until further notice, from Dr. Compton. 

Mr, CoHN. Now, is it a fact, to your knowledge, that following this, 
when word of this attempted move got out, various Members of Con- 
gress made formal protests to the State Department concerning the 
closing down of this important Service at the time this great issue was 
presented ? 

Mr. DooHER. I have been so informed. 

Mr. CoHN. And is it a fact that the Hebrew Language Service is 
still on the air today, in spite of Mr. Harris' directive? 

Mr. DooHER, That is true. 

The Chairman. May I interrupt again ? If Harris' order had been 
followed, roughly what date would the operations of the Hebrew desk 
have been discontinued ? 

Mr. DooHER. The approximate date of January 15 was set for the 
discontinuation of the broadcasts. 

The Chairman. In other words, the machinery was put in motion 
to have this desk discontinued about the time the old administration 
left and the new one took over ? 

Mr. DooHER. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you this, also. Do you feel that if 
Harris' order had been folowed, you would have been performing a 
great service to the Communist cause ? 

Mr. Dooher. I feel so, sir. 

The Chairman. In other words, see if this is correct. You feel 
that here you had a real counterpropaganda weapon; that inter- 
national communism had proved that they would not respect the 
rights of religious and racial minorities, contrary to what they had 
been preaching for so long, and you felt this information was of 
tremendous interest to the world, not only to the Jewish world but 
to the entire world, because today it might be the Jewish people who 
were being hung, and tomorrow it is another minority group? 

Mr. DooiiER. That is true, sir. But I particularly felt that to go 
off the air at that particular time would have been tragic to the people 
of Israel, when they really needed the Voice of America to show 
them that we were fighting the same battle against the Communist 
enemy. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, Mr. Dooher, I might ask you this. Is this example 
of the Harris' directive, at the time when this issue was presented, 
the only example you had seen of a directive or an order or an attitude 
assumed by people within the State Department which would, in 
your opinion, benefit the cause of international communism? 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 199 

Mr, DoOHER. It is not unique. 

Mr. CoHN. You say it is not unique? 

Mr. DooHER. That is right, sir. 

Mr. CoHN. Have you detected a pattern, along those lines? 

Mr. DooHER. I have. 

Mr. CoHN. Over what period of time ? 

Mr. DooHER. I would say over the last year I have been obliged to 
protest at least twice against such a pattern, which began to appear 
first in strong pressures against our extremely effective Persian lan- 
guage program to Iran, also in a critical time; later, our Persian 
language program was cut and our Turkish language program was 
cut, and there were several other instances, which I would like to go 
into in detail later on. 

Mr. CoHN. Was there ever any attempt to get you to eliminate the 
anti-Communist content of your broadcast? 

Mr. DooHER. There was an effort to have us reduce drastically the 
anti-Communist content of our broadcasts in the Persian language. 

Mr. CoHN. I think that is something we will want to go into in 
further detail on another occasion, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Potter of Michigan? 

Senator Potter. Mr. Dooher, do you consider that the policies were 
the result of design, or just plain stupidity? 

Mr. Dooher. Well, sir, I hate to go into the reasoning which may 
have been behind this pattern. However, I must say that it is ex- 
actly what the Soviet Union wanted to happen. 

Senator Potter. You think it was too consistent to be just plain 
stupidity? 

Mr. Dooher. It was certainly consistent, sir, and it certainly was 
stupid, but I believe that there was a pattern, and stupidity, I believe, 
does not fall into patterns. 

The Chairman. As Jim Forrestal once said : "Consistency is not 
a mark of stupidity. If a man is merely stupid, he does the right thing 
once in a while." 

Mr. Dooher. That was my impression in this case. 

Senator Potter. If I may, Mr. Chairman, one other question: 

Have we made any evaluation as to the effect the anti-Communist 
program has had in Israel ? Has it been effective, or not ? 

Mr. Dooher. Yes, sir ; but I would like Dr. Glazer, who is really the 
expert on the Hebrew program, to answer this question more fully. 

Senator Potter. Dr. Glazer? 

The Chairman. Did you get the question, Doctor ? In other words, 
after you continued the program in spite of the fact that Reed Harris 
ordered it discontinued, do you have any proof of whether your pro- 
gram was effective, or ineffective ? 

Is that your question, Senator ? 

Senator Potter. Yes. 

Dr. Glazer. We have two types of evidence which bears on the ques- 
tion of effectiveness. The first is a semiscientific survey, that was 
made right in the field, with a group of some 50 listeners, who an- 
swered a nurnber of questions relating to the effect that we were 
hoping to achieve. Another and perhaps even more important index 
of effectiveness is that provided by spontaneous unsolicited letters 
that have come to us from the people living in the country. 



200 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

If I may, I would like to read two or three sentences, first from this 
evaluation survey, and then, if you like brief excerpts from the 
letters. I have a whole bagful of them. 

Senator Potter. How many letters have you received. Dr. Glazer? 

Dr. Glazer. We have received something like 900 letters since we 
inaugurated our broadcasts. 

Senator Potter. And was there a marked increase? 

Dr. Glazer. A tremendous increase, after Prague. 

Senator Potter. After the Jewish purge in the ].ron Curtain 
countries ? 

Dr. Glazer. Yes, there was. 

Senator Potter. Do you have any idea of the degree of increase ? 

Dr. Glazer. I would say at least fivefold in terms of Hebrew-lan- 
guage letters. 

Senator Poiter. Is that right ? 

Dr. Glazer. Yes. I have right here a representative of the type. 
May I read one or two sentences from it ? 

Senator Potter. Yes. 

Dr. Glazer. I brought the original as well as a translation with me. 

(Dr. Glazer reads from the original, in the Hebrew language.) 

Senator Potter. Doctor, I am afraid you are going to have to trans< 
late it for us. 

Dr. Glazer. All right. 

After the Prague trial and following the Moscow accusations against the Jews 
and the State of Israel, the number of your listeners has grown tremendously. 

The letter was dated January 30, 1953. 

Another listener, in a letter dated January 21, 1953, from another 
city says : 

As a regular listener to the Hebrew Hour of the Voice of America, may I 
express my satisfaction with your program. I was especially impressed by 
the broadcast during the Prague trial, by the recording from Radio Prague, 
and the reaction of the press in America. 

I might mention here that we managed to obtain within hours, and 
replay the testimony on tape of Mr. Oren, an Israeli left-winger who 
was detained by the Communists in Prague. By playing this back 
to Israel, the effect was tremendous. I mean, here was their own 
speaking against them. 

Just to show you that this was not just a brand new approach of 
our, here is a letter dated last April : 

Like many others, I was happy that the VOA started to broadcast in He- 
brew. The programs are varied, and I prefer to listen to you rather than 
to our own national radio, which in my estimation is of poor quality and does 
not do enough to unmask communism. 

Another letter. This was received just 2 or 3 weeks ago: 

Furthermore your Voice has a great influence in counterbalancing the con- 
tinuous stream of propaganda coming from the East. 

Senator Potter. Doctor, I would like to ask one more question. 
It is my understanding that the Communist propaganda is extremely 
anti-American in nature. Is that true ? 

Dr. Glazer. Yes, it is. 

Senator Potter. And in order for us to counteract that, it is good 
propaganda on our part to bring out the truth as it relates to anti- 
communism. Is that rifiht ? . 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 201 

Dr. Glazer. That is correct. 

Senator Potter. There has been some thinking, apparently, with 
some of the policymakers of the Voice, that rather than to be anti- 
commiinistic we should be pro- American. Has that been the evalu- 
ation that some of the policymakers have made ? 

Dr. Glazer. Yes. Looking at it one way, the two are almost tlie 
same, reconcilable; but it is easy for me to see how by following 
another theory and devoting ourselves exclusively to American ma- 
terials, we would have no time left to answer specific charo-es made 
by Communists. 

Senator Poti^er. Thank you. Dr. Glazer. 

The Chairman. Senator Jackson of Washington ? 

Senator Jackson. When did the radio broadcasts start in Hebrew! 

Dr. Glazer. We started broadcasting in April 1951. 

Senator Jackson. Did you have any trouble continuing those broad- 
casts up until the time of the order that was issued, I believe, in Janu- 
ary, to terminate the broadcast? Had there been any difficulties? 
That is what I am getting at. Had there been any difficulties prior 
to this final order which was to terminate the broadcast? 

Dr. Glazer. There were vague rumors of alleged ineffectiveness, of 
the wastefulness of broadcasting to a country where the program 
wasn't being heard at all, or if it was heard wasn't understood. 

Senator Jackson. You mean trouble with the signal ? 

Dr. Glazer, Yes ; first it was said that people simply couldn't hear 
the signal. 

Senator Jackson. Well, what about that? 

Dr. Glazer. Well, I have here hundreds of letters that show pre- 
cisely the opposite. They are responses to individual programs. The 
people couldn't have answered the way they did if they didn't hear it. 

Senator Jackson. And that was prior to the termination order? 

Dr. Glazer. Prior to the termination order. 

The Chairman. May I interrupt. Senator Jackson ? 

Am I correct in this, that at one time you did have trouble with 
the signal reaching Israel, but after the Courier station was located 
in the Mediterranean, you got a good, strong signal into Israel ? 

Dr. Glazer. Yes ; we did. 

The Chairman. So, in other words, there is no basis for the claim 
that this was being canceled out because of a weak signal reaching 
the target area ? 

Dr. Glazer. Absolutely none. 

The Chairman. Pardon me. Senator Jackson. 

Senator Jackson. Now the second thing : You said that there was 
some criticism, as I understood your answer, that even if it could 
get there, not everyone would be able to understand it. What about 
that? 

Dr. Glazer. Such a claim was made. However, I hasten to say 
that I didn't see it in writing. 

I should mention right now that throughout all the activity lead- 
ing up to the threat of suspension of the broadcast, I was never in- 
formed of it officially. 

Senator Jackson. Let me ask you this. I assume that everyone 
in Israel can understand Hebrew. 



202 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Dr. Glazer. Not everj^one. The country has doubled its popula- 
tion in the last 5 years, some immigrants coming from areas where 
Hebrew isn't normally spoken. 

Senator Jackson. What percentage could hear the broadcasts ? 

Dr. Glazer. I might say 

Senator Symington. Answer the question, please. 

Dr. Glazer. In 1948, when the state was founded, according to the 
official year book of the Government of Israel, 54 percent of the pop- 
ulation of Israel understood Hebrew alone. That was their only 
language. 

Senator Jackson. That is in 1948. 

Dr. Glazer. In 1948. The presumption is that since then the 
number has increased, due to the tremendously intensive effort made 
by the Government to teach Hebrew as a means of more quickly 
integrating the new immigrants into the country. 

The Chairman. You did not finish your answer. You said 54 per- 
cent understood no language except Hebrew. We are interested in 
those that can understand the Hebrew language. 

Dr. Glazer. Eight. Another 20 percent had Hebrew as a major 
language, meaning they could understand another language as well. 
So something like 74 percent of the population, in 1948, before the 
intensive language education program had gotten under way, were 
fully competent to understand our broadcasts in Hebrew. 

Senator Jackson. Well, now, what would you say the percentage 
would be, starting in 1951, 3 years later from the time that you re- 
ferred to ? What percentage of the population could understand He- 
brew ? 

Dr. Glazer. My guess is that at least 85 percent of the country 
would understand the bulk of what we were saying. Seventy-five 
percent, assuming they had the necessary amount of education and 
background, can understand the whole thing completely. 

Senator Jackson. In other words, of all the languages that could be 
employed to bring this message to the people in Israel, Hebrew would 
be the best ? 

Dr. Glvzer. It certainly would. 

Senator Jackson. Now, there is one thing I am not clear on. You 
indicated that back in 1948, 48 percent could understand Hebrew, and 
that you had a lot of these people in from other countries, I assume 
from the Iron-Curtain area, and so on. Was it 54 percent ? 

Dr. Glazer. Fifty-four percent in 1948. 

Senator Jackson. Fifty-four percent that could understand He- 
brew. Was that the only language they knew ? 

Dr. Glazer. That was the only language they knew. Out of a 
population of some 700,000, there were about 350,000 people in the 
country who knew no other language but Hebrew. 

Senator Jackson. Well, how many came in after 1948 ? 

Dr. Glazer. Well, the country has doubled. There are now 1,300,000 
or so. 

Senator Jackson. Now, the new people that came in, could they un- 
derstand Hebrew ? 

Dr. Glazer. A good many of them could. 

Senator Jackson. I am a little confused on the percentage. In 
other words, the population doubled, and this new group coming in, 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 203 

as I understand it, now — not so many of them could understand He- 
brew. And yet the percentage is 85. 

Dr. Glazer. I mentioned the 1948 figure. That is the only one 
available. There is nothing else. The rest of it is guesswork. 

Looking at it in terms of whole numbers, in 1948, there were 350,- 

000 people who understood the language and no other. Add another 
20 percent who understood it and spoke it as a first language, as well 
as perhaps English and other European languages. 

Senator Jackson. That makes a total of what? 

Dr. Glazer. Let's say 450,000 in 1948. Well, the number did not 
decrease in the intervening 5 years. 

Senator Jackson. But you see, what you are saying is that you are 
assuming that tlie people who came in after 1948, a greater percentage 
of those people tliat came in, understood Hebrew. I am not trying to 
cross you up. I am just trying to get the accurate situation. That 
would indicate, do you not see, that a higher percentage of the immi- 
grants into Israel could understand Hebrew than the people that were 
already in Israel. At least, that is the way I understand it. 

Dr. Glazer. No, I didn't mean to imply that. "VVliat I was trying 
to indicate was that, due to the tremenclous efforts to teach the lang- 
uage, the new people coming into the country were able to learn it 
very, very quickly. 

Senator Jackson. I get it. 

Dr. Glazer. The Government made a sustained and systematic 
effort to teach it, as a prime requisite for integration. 

Senator Jackson. To teach it. Now, let me ask you this other thing. 
What other medium has been used to bring the story to the people of 
Israel and to the Jewish people througliout Europe ? Because I under- 
stand this broadcast in Hebrew was beamed not only to Israel but 
tc Jewisli people behind the Iron Curtain for example, and elsewhere. 

Dr. Glazer. Using the word "beam" in a narrower sense, we mean 
broadcasts directed toward a given area. However, if you are located 
in those regions where the signal crosses, you can hear it. But our 
content is not primarily directed to those people. 

Senator Jackson. Well, but it is directed to the Jewish people, and 

1 assume that countries other than Israel could pick up the broadcasts. 
Dr. Glazer. Yes, they can. And I have a number of letters indi- 
cating that fact, despite our not beaming specifically to these areas, 
the signal can be heard there. 

Senator Jackson. Were there any other media used besides the 
radio program? 

Dr. Glazer. Yes. All the branches of the international information 
program, such as movies and press and the like. 

The Chairman. Senator Jackson, may I interrupt ? 

I think at this point it should be clear that we are talking about 
beaming a program to the Jewish people. I think it should also be 
clear that one of the major objectives of the Hebrew desk was also 
to reach the Arabic world. Right? And to try to prevent friction 
between the Jewish people and the Arabic people. Is that right? 

Dr. Glazer. I should say that was the function of the Near East 
Division, of which we were a part. Our assignment was principally 
with the Hebrew-speaking people livinor in Israel. 

Senator Jackson. Yes. Well, I had understood also, Mr. Chair- 
man, that the broadcast was a broad one, that it was directed not just 



204 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

to Israel alone but to the Jewish people in a wide area in the Near 
East and elsewhere. 

At least, I had understood that previously, from earlier testimony, 
I believe, in executive session. So that it could get to the Jewish 
people wherever they might be in that area even if they were outside 
of Israel. 

Dr. Glazer. Oh, yes. 

Senator Jackson. Now, in the customary media, such as books and 
radio transcriptions and other things that are used now, have they 
made any cuts ? Have they made any cuts in those areas ? 

Dr. Glazer. I can't say as to that. 

Senator Jackson. You would not know ? 

Dr. Glazer. I wouldn't know that. 

Senator Jackson. That is all. 

The Chairman. Senator Symington? 

Senator Symington. I would like to speak to Mr. Dooher a minute. 

You said something to the effect that you thought the reason this 
whole program was not operating the way you felt it should operate 
to the best interest of this country was probably one of design. Is 
that right '? 

Mr. Dooher. No, sir. I tried to leave the impression that these 
efforts to curtail, to reduce, and to eliminate programs that were 
operating in the interests of the country were a design. 

Senator Syiviington. Were a design? 

Mr. Dooher. Yes. I think the programs that we were broadcasting 
were most effective in implementing our Government's policy. How- 
ever, the efforts to destroy these programs, to reduce them, and to 
eliminate them, were a part of a design, which covered certainly several 
large language areas in my division. 

Senator Symington. Now, that was what I was trying to say in the 
beginning. Who do you say was responsible for that particular 
development in policy? 

Mr. Dooher. Sir, I would say that the instructions which came to 
me, which resulted in these reductions and cessations of program, came 
from the higher echelons of the International Information Adminis- 
tration. They did not come to me from my direct superior. 

Senator Symington. Who was your direct superior ? 

Mr. Dooher. My direct superior was Mr. Alfred Puhan, who was 
the program manager. 

Senator Symington. You do not think he was responsible? 

Mr. Dooher. I am certain, sir, he was not responsible. 

Senator Symington. Wlio was his superior ? 

Mr. Dooher. His superior was Mr. Alfred Morton. 

Senator Symington. You think he was responsible? 

Mr. Dooher. I do not think so. 

Senator Symington. And who was his superior? 

Mr. Dooher. His superior was Dr. Compton. 

Senator Symington. And do you think he was responsible? 

Mr. Dooher. I believe, sir, tliat the echelon of people in Washing- 
ton whom Dr. Compton headed were responsible for this situation. 

Senator Symington. Well, as I remember it, Dr. Compton reversed 
the decision to cut out the Hebrew broadcasting. It that not right? 

Mr. Dooher. That is true, sir. What I said, sir, is the echelon which 
he headed. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 205 

Senator Symington. Wlio signed the order to terminate the Hebrew 
broadcast ? 

Mr. DooHER. That was Mr. Keed Harris, sir. 

Senator Symington. Mr. Reed Harris? 

Mr. DooHER. That is right. 

Senator Symington. Who is Mr. Reed Harris? 

Mr. DooHER. Mr. Reed Harris, I believe, at this moment is Deputy 
Administrator of the International Information Administration. 
However, at that time he was Acting Administrator in the absence of 
Dr. Compton. 

Senator Symington. Have you had any differences with Mr. Reed 
Harris before this ? 

Mr. DooHER. I have never met Mr. Reed Harris before this. 

Senator Symington. So you would not be considered a disgruntled 
employee with respect to Mr. Reed Harris ? 

Mr. DooiiER. No, sir, I have never met Mr. Reed Harris in my 
life. 

Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, is Mr. Reed Harris going to 
testify on Tuesday ? 

The Chairman. If the other Senators agree with me, I think we 
should have Mr. Reed Harris on Tuesday. 

Mr. DooHER. I am very anxious that he do testify. I feel that any- 
one whose name I mention here should testify. 

Senator Symington. May I suggest, Mr. Chairman, knowing noth- 
ing of Mr. Reed Harris' attitude in this matter except what we heard 
in executive session, that Mr. Dooher be present when he testifies, so 
that the committee could decide whose testimony they considered the 
more accurate ? 

The Chairman. I think that might be a very good idea. 

Could you be in Washington on Tuesday, Mr. Dooher? 

Mr. DooHER. I can arrange that. 

The Chairman. And I think, Dr. Glazer, if you could be down, I 
would like to have you there. I do not want to disrupt your operations 
completely, but if you could be there I wish you would. 

Let me ask both of you gentlemen this. Am I correct that it is your 
feeling that a good, well-run Voice of America can do a tremendous 
amount of good, and that the task of the new team in the State De- 
partment, tlie task of this committee, is to help clean up the Voice, 
make it really the Voice of America, rather than to destroy the Voice 
and do away with it ? 

Mr. Dooher. Sir, I would like to say that I can prove that in areas 
of tlie Voice of America where we have had effective programs' and 
effective support we have done a first-class job of implementing our 
Government's policy. 

The Chairman. And you feel that the desk of which Dr. Glazer 
is head has been doing a good job ? 

Mr. Dooher. I am very proud of it, sir. 

The Chairman. And am I correct in this, that you feel that the 
reason why the Hebrew language desk was being discontinued was 
because it was doing a good job of combating communism? 

Mr. Dooher. Again, sir, I don't want to go into the thinking of the 
people who gave the directive, but the result was the same. 

The Chairman. Let us put it this way : If I had been in a position 
of power, if I were an ardent member of the Communist Party, would 



206 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

I not have taken tlie same action that was taken to discontinue the 
Hebrew language desk, at a time when Communist Russia became 
openly anti-Semitic, at a time when we had this great counterpropa- 
ganda weapon? 

Mr, DooHER. I believe so, sir. 

The Chairman. So that while you do not want to delve into the 
minds of the individuals 

Mr. DooHER. No, sir. 

The Chairman. And you do not propose to examine their motives, 
you feel that the action would have been the same had they been 
representing Joe Stalin ? 

Mr. DooHER. That is correct, sir. I hope I am only asked to testify 
on fact and history. I don't want to talk about the thinking of other 
people. 

The Chairman. And as far as you are concerned, when you put 
a gun to a man's head and pull the trigger, if there is a bullet in the 
gun, he is just as dead whether you intended to kill him or not. 

Mr. DooiiER. I think so ; yes. 

The Chairman. Senator Jackson? 

Senator Jackson. Mr. Chairman, I just have one or two questions, 
I wanted to ask Dr. Glazer. 

I quite agree with your analysis of the attitude of the Soviet toward 
minority people and more particulaiiy toward the Jewish people. 
They are simply following the policies and the tactics of the Czarist 
regime in that respect. I think you would probably agree on that 
point. 

Now, let me ask you this : The broadcasts to Israel in Hebrew started 
in 1951, as I understand it? 

Dr. Gi^ZER. That is correct. 

Senator Jackson. During those broadcasts, did you bring out from 
time to time that the Soviet had always followed an anti-Semitic line ? 
I mean, did you get that into the broadcast ? 

Dr. Glazer. Yes, we did. We did that very often. 

Senator Jackson. But what I am getting at, now, is that you did 
not start on this particular line of attack after the open statement by 
Pravda that there was a Zionist plot on within the Soviet Union and 
the satellite areas. 

Dr. Glazer. No; that is not correct. I would, just as a guess, say 
there must have been at least 50 or 60 parts' of programs which we 
devoted to this theme. 

Senator Jackson. So from the very beginning you followed through 
on this theme that the Russians were essentially anti-Semitic, anti- 
minority group ? 

Dr. Glazer. Yes ; we did. I will give you one example. 

Senator Jackson. And you gave illustrations of it, did you ? 

Dr. Glazer. Yes. 

Last year a man named Solomon Schwartz published a book called 
The Jews of the Soviet Union, in which he showed very objectively 
and in a scholarly manner the roots of Soviet anti-Semitic policy and 
the way it has been carried out. We reviewed the book. It took almost 
half a program. On another day we interviewed the author. And 
then we gave a roundup of American book reviewers. In other words, 
we kept pounding this theme. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 207 

Senator Jackson, But that was your main tlieme; that is what I 
am getting at. 

Dr. Glazer. a year before the Prague trial. It was one of our more 
effective weapons. 

Senator Jackson. And then you brought out, in connection with 
the various trials in the satellite area, in connection with the so-called 
purges, that they were directed primarily at the Jews. 

Dr. Glazer. Very much so. One of the listeners wrote to us to say 
that he thought the local radio wasn't doing enough in this connection. 

Senator Jackson. And then when the Russian Government came out 
formally and said that the Zionists were, in effect, traitors, that is, 
referring to the Jews in Eussia, that was really the first formal an- 
nouncement they had made, and really confirmed what you have been 
saying? 

Dr. Glazer. Exactly. That gave us greater credibility. 

The Chairman. Senator McClellan ? 

Senator McClellan. Mr. Dooher, I did not quite understand, a 
while ago, when you were trying to give us the line of authority 
superior to your authority so that we might determine who was 
i-esponsible for this order. As I recall, Dr. Compton was overseas at 
that time. 

Mr. DooHER. That is correct, sir. 

Senator McClellan. And Mr. Harris was the Acting Admin- 
istrator ? 

Mr. Dooher. Yes, sir. 

Senator McClellan. And then you traced it all the way to Mr. 
Harris, and you said you didn't think he was responsible. Is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Dooher. Oh, no, sir. No, sir. I said that I believed that the 
echelon under Dr. Compton was responsible, and then I specifically 
stated that Mr. Harris signed the directive. 

Senator McClellan. He signed the directive. 

Mr. Dooher. Yes. 

Senator McClellan. So Dr. Compton was not immediately re- 
sponsible, at least, because he was overseas at the time ? 

Mr. Dooher. Absolutely, sir, and he supported us — — 

Senator McClellan. And he later rescinded the order ? 

Mr. Dooher. Absolutely, sir. He supported our appeal. 

Senator McClellan. You appealed to him. You went over your 
superiors and appealed to him ? 

Mr. Dooher. Yes, sir. 

Senator McClellan. And he rescinded the order? 

Mr. Dooher. He postponed the implementation of the order, sir. 

Senator McClellan. W ell, he suspended it until further notice ? 

Mr. Dooher. That is right. 

Senator McClellan. And you are operating now under that sus- 
pension ? 

Mr. Dooher. That is right, sir. 

Senator McClellan. The order has not yet been fully revoked ? 

Mr. Dooher. It has not, sir. 

Senator McClellan. It is now suspended. 

Mr. Dooher. It is suspended. 

Senator McClellan. Now, what I was trying to determine: You 
say it was an echelon under Dr. Compton who you think is respon- 
sible? 



208 STATE DEPARTMENT IXFORMATION PROGRAM 

Mr. DooHER. Mr. Harris, sir, is the echelon I had in mind. 

Senator McClellan. That is what I am trying to get, the name. 
Mr. Harris is the man that you hold responsible in your judgment 
for this order and for the decision ? 

Mr. DooHER. Definitely, sir. 

Senator McClellan. And he is the one that should be called to 
account and asked to explain why and give reasons why such an order, 
he thought, was advisable at the time ? 

Mr. DooHER. I believe he should have the opportunity to testify. 

The Chairman. Senator McClellan, may I say that the next wit- 
ness will testify that after the order w^as disregarded originally by 
the Hebrew desk in New York, Mr. Harris personally delivered the 
order to Mr. Francis. 

Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, what I am trying to deter- 
mine is: As we discover these cases or incidents of either stupidity 
or design, as are being testified to, I want to find out which ones are 
responsible and call them to account. There is no use to go in circles 
around here. I don't know^ all about the ramifications of your ad- 
ministrative procedures, and so forth. But I want to find out which 
ones are responsible and let them undertake to justify it, if they can. 

The Chairman. I may say, Mr. Chairman — I constantly make the 
mistake of calling you "Mr. Chairman." 

Senator McClellan. That is all right. 

The Chairman. I have been so used to being a minority member, 
you being the chairman. * 

Senator McClellan. I am getting accustomed to it the other way 
around. 

Senator Jackson. I was just going to ask if there is anyone besides 
Mr. Harris in this echelon, using "echelon" in a plural sense — at least, 
I would take it to be that — is there anyone besides Mr. Harris that 
would be responsible for these orders that we have been discussing ? 

Mr. Dooher. Well, sir, I believe the testimony showed that Mr. 
Harris said that the PAB was responsible for this order. That is 
why I said "echelon." 

Senator Jackson. Well, who is on that board? 

Mr. DooHER. I cannot testify to that, since I don't know. I think 
another witness should testify to that, since I have not been on the 
Washington scene. 

Senator Jackson. Was that under Mr. Harris' direction — that 
board? 

Dr. DooHER. At that time, it was under Mr. Harris' direction. 

Senator Jackson. You do not know who is on the board ? 

Mr. DooHER. No, sir. 

Senator Jackson. Is it an interdepartmental board or a group of 
outside citizens ? 

Mr. DooHER. Sir, I know nothing about it. I would not want to 
testify. 

The Chairman. I may say that one of the members of the board is 
Bradley Connors, who testified before the committee last week. 

Senator Potter. May I ask one question of Mr. Dooher? 

Mr. Dooher, you are Acting Chief of the Near East Division, so 
the Hebrew desk is part of your responsibility ? 

Mr. Dooher. That is correct. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAIVI 209 

Senator Potter. Have there been any other instances where the 
policy as sent down to you from Washington has impeded your efforts 
toward a strong anti-Communist Voice? 

Mr. DooHER. I would prefer to say, sir, that the administrative di- 
rectives were much more of an impediment than the policy from Wash- 
ington. When I go into the Persian situation further, you can un- 
derstand why I am making this distinction. We were cut in several 
Near East programs. For example, our Persian program, at one time, 
I think on September G, was cut from ly^ hours to 1 hour. Now, no- 
body in the Information Service, I believe, will deny the fact that 
our Persian program is one of the most effective anti-Communist 
programs on the air. 

Senator Potter. Also, I think it probably should be made clear, 
Mr. Dooher, that we are referring to the old team ; I mean, the ad- 
ministration that has been in power. Now, from the new adminis- 
tration that has now gone into being, has there been any effort on 
their pai't to liinder the anti-Communist program of the Voice? 

Mr. DooHER. No, sir. In fact, I have been very encouraged by the 
top directives we have received. However, I cannot say this echelon 
has changed since the new administration. In other words, we are 
still getting our cuts, our recommendations for cuts, and in fact re- 
cently a recommendation was made that all broadcasts to the free 
world be eitlier put on a standby basis or cut out completely. 

Senator Potter. I wish to assure you that I, too, hope that that 
echelon that you have referred to will be changed in the near future. 

If I can revert back to Dr. Glazer's testimony, just for general in- 
terest, I would assume that after the Communist purge of Jewish per- 
sons in Russia and the satellite countries, as you stated, we had a 
great propaganda weapon there. 

Now, is there any way that we as a Government or as responsible 
people in Government, other than just the Voice, could aid in making 
friends with Jewish people throughout the world ? I know that is a 
broad, general question, but do you have any instances that might 
have happened or did happen? 

Dr. Glazer. Well, in my opinion, the most important thing for us 
to convey is the sense of revulsion to anti-Semitism on the part of the 
American people, from top to bottom, from the President to the man 
in the street, official and nonofficial, in every walk of life, in every 
type of circumstance. We want to dispel the notion, largely engen- 
dered by Communist propaganda, that totalitarian tendencies and 
anti-Semitism characterize life in the United States. 

This, in my opinion, is very important for us to get over, because 
it will shatter the cliche that reaction or conservatism and anti- 
Semitism necessarily go together. If I may say so, sir, we are very 
frequently told that "McCarthyism equals fascism, equals anti- 
Semitism." Well, I have read the papers very carefully during the 
past 5 or 6 years, and I suppose that I am as familiar with the equation 
as anybody else is. However, there are other ways of looking at the 
thing. 

Senator Symington. At what thing? 

Dr. Glazer. The validity of the equation. It is most questionable. 
We can say, with greater accuracy, that "anticommunism equals anti- 
anti-Semitism." Hence, those who fight anti-Semitism or other forms 



210 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM | 

of minority group discrimination, which are calculated instruments of j 
Soviet policy, automatically strike at communism and strengthen the I 
free world. The American ideal of nondiscrimination, nonprejudice, 
is one of the most potent weapons that we have in our campaign of 
truth. 

The Chairman. I might say that I am sure you will agree with 
me, Doctor. And you are an authority on this subject. You have 
been head of the Hebrew desk for some time, doing an excellent job. 
There is no doubt in your mind, is there, that whenever any man starts 
to fight communism the Communists try to pin some type of label on 
him, and if they can convince the world that a man fighting commu- 
nism is anti-Semitic they have won a great victory. Is that not 
correct ? 

Dr. Glazer. Exactly. 

The Chairman. I did not intend to go into this, but in view of the 
fact that you have brought it up — you have been a very loyal Ameri- 
can and very loyal to your own race, which is excellent. Do you know 
of any incident that indicated any justification for trying to identify 
conservatism or McCarthyism with anti-Semitism ? You brought up 
the subject, and I just wanted to go into it. 

Dr. Glazer. Well, it was a pattern, to use a popular word here, a 
pattern, often drawn by the press. Before anything happens, the 
equation is made. 

The Chairman. In other words, they start to scream before they are 
hurt? 

Dr. Glazer. So it seems to me. 

The Chairman. I am speaking of the press ; the left-wing press- 

Dr. Glazer. Yes. 

The Chairman. Now let me ask you this. I have long maintained, 
before the open anti-Semitism of the Communists manifested itself, 
that they had to be anti-any group of citizens who are loyal to their 
nation and loyal to their race. Actually, all that has happened, when 
the Communists became publicly anti-Semitic, is that they have 
merely proved what people like yourself — and, I think, myself — 
have known for a long time ; is that not correct ? It was inevitable 
that any dictatorship, whether it be Hitler's, whether it be Stalin's, 
would have to end up being anti-Semitic, anti-any strongly religious 
group. There is no question about that, is there? 

Dr. Glazer. None at all. 

The Chairman. And, in simiming up the testimony of yourself and 
Dr. Dooher, your position is this: tluxt you had this desk, and the 
only method whereby you could touch a large segment of the world 
population was this method, and you were doing it in a language 
which was the sole language of many people. When you were given 
a tremendous counterpropaganda weapon, as the public anti-Semitism 
of tlie international communistic movement was, and when you could 
really do a job, then those in the old team of the State Department 
took steps to close up your desk, and, as Mr. Dooher said, performed 
a great service to the Communist movement. That is your testimony, 
in fact, and further that you feel that if this desk is properly run 
it can be a tremendous counterpropaganda weapon. And I assume 
that you also feel strongly, in view of the tremendous amount of 
propaganda being put out by Communist Russia, that we should have 
a counterpropaganda Voice. Right? 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 211 

Dr. Glazer. Definitely. 

The Chairman. There are a great number of subjects we would 
like to go into with Dr. Dooher, in view of tlie fact that he heads 
many other desks. However, we have another witness on the matter 
under discussion today, and time is running out. It is Saturday, and 
I think the Senators may have to get back to Washington, or some 
of them may have to. So, I will ask you gentlemen to step down 
so that we can call the other witnesses, unless there is another question. 

Senator Poti-er. I would just like to ask one question. 

Your testimony bears out the fact that today being pro-Communist 
is being anti-Semitic. 

Dr. Glazer. Is that question addressed to me? 

Senator Potter. Yes. I said your testimony bears out the fact that 
today to be pro-Communist is to be anti-Semitic, considering the 
treatment of the Jewish people. 

Dr. Glazer. I would put it this way : Anyone using anti-Semitism 
for any reason whatsoever is aiding the Soviet cause, wherever he 
happens to be. 

The Chairman. Doctor, one further question. Or Mr. Dooher, I 
believe, might be able to answer this. 

Is it correct that the Information Service at Iran has ordered that 
there be no anti-Communist information put out? Or is that correct? 

Mr. Dooher. I believe, sir, that there is a report which indicates 
that the Information Service in Iran puts out no anti-Communist 
propaganda. 

The Chairman. And under orders? 

Mr. Dooher. That, sir, is difficult for me to say. I have seen the 
report. I would not care to say what order it might be. It might 
be the Persian Government or somebody in our Government. But 
I do know that it puts out no anti-Communist propaganda. 

The Chairman. Now, just one final question to Dr. Glazer. And, 
as I say, I ask you this only because you brought up the subject. I 
know that whenever, as you indicate, anyone fights Communists the 
Communist elements try to pin the anti-Semitic label on him. Do you 
know of any justification for that? Is there any reason why a man 
who is exposing Communists should, by the wildest stretch of the 
imagination, be smeared with an anti-Semitic label ? 

Dr. Glazer. Well, there is a very good justification in the tactical- 
propaganda sense, but none with relation to truth. 

The Chairman. None with relation to truth ? 

Dr. Glazer. Of course not. They are completely divorced. 

The Chairman. In other words, a good reason from the standpoint 
of Communist propaganda, but no good reason based upon truth ? 

Dr. Glazer. Certainly not. 

The Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen, very much. 

Your next v/itness, Mr. Counsel ? 

Mr. CoHN. Mr. James Thompson. 

The Chairman. Mr. Thompson, will you raise your right hand? 
In this matter now in hearing before the committee, do you solemnly 
swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 
help you God? 

Mr. TnoMrsoN. I do. 

The Chairman. Mr. Counsel? 

Mr. Cohn. Would you give us your full name, please? 



212 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES F. THOMPSON, FACILITIES MANAGER, 
VOICE OF AMERICA 

Mr. Thompson. James F. Thompson. 

Mr. CoHN. Are you an official of the Voice of America, Mr, 
Thompson ? 

Mr. Thompson. My job is facilities manager. 

Mr. CoHN. You are facilities manager of the Voice of America ? 

Mr. Thompson. Yes. 

Mr. Cohn. How long a period of time have you been with the Voice 
of America ? 

Mr. Thoimpson. Since about the last week of November of 1948. 

Mr. Cohn. Now, did you go to the Voice of America, and did you 
apply for a position there, or did the State Department ask you tc 
accept a position there ? 

Mr. Thompson. I was offered the position by Mr. George Allen, 
who was then Assistant Secretary, and I believe just recently made 
Ambassador to India. 

The Chairman. Would you speak a little louder ? 

Mr. Cohn. Have you held various high positions in the Voice of 
America prior to the one you have now assumed ? 

Mr. Thompson. Well, I had two positions only. 

Mr. Cohn. Wliat were they ? 

Mr. Thompson. The first was Associate Chief for Operations, and in 
the process of the expansion of the organization the operating facili- 
ties were set up as an organization, and I was appointed the facilities 
manager to direct that operation. 

The Chairman. 1 am sorry, sir. You will have to speak a little 
louder. Would you move over to this chair nearer ? 

Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Thom])son, are you familiar with the incident 
that occurred in December of 1952, in which a directive came through 
directing the suspension of service on the Hebrew desk ? 

Mr. Thompson. To some extent ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Cohn. Did you participate in any of the discussions or meetings 
around the time that directive came through ? 

Mr. Thompson. Yes, sir ; I did. 

Mr. Cohn. What was your view on the validity of this directive? 

Mr. Thompson. Not being particularly schooled in politics, or in- 
ternational politics, my view might not be of much value but it did 
not seem to be very sensible, in view of the trials that were going onj 
and the publicity coming out from behind the Iron Curtain on the; 
drives and anti-Semitism, and so forth. 

Mr. Cohn. You are familiar with the fact that protests were made 
by the Voice in New York, and eventually through appeals abroad 
to Dr. Compton and Mr. Morton this order was suspended, so that 
the Hebrew service did not have to shut down; is that correct? 

Mr. Thompson. Yes, sir; absolutely. 

Mr. Cohn. Now I want to come to something else. 

The Chairman. But, first, is it correct that the order was first 
disregarded by the New York office, and subsequently Eeed Harris 
personally handed the order to a JNIr. Francis? Or do you have that 
information ? 

Mr. Tpiompson. Well, I saw the order in New York; yes, sir. The 
day I saw it was the day Mr. Harris was in New York. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 213 

The Chair]max. As far as you know, Mr. Harris brought the order 
to New York and gave it to someone over there ? 

Mr. Thompson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Was that an unusual way to do it? 

Mr. Thompson. Well, it was unusual for Mr. Harris to come to New 
York. 

The Chairman. Ordinarily an order would be sent out by mail or by 
teletype, I assume. 

Mr. Thompson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Go ahead, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. CoHN. I would like to come to another topic of very great im- 
portance, here, Mr. Thompson. Are you familiar with the Office of 
German Affairs of the State Department? You know such a thing 
exists? 

Mr. Thompson. I know such a thing exists ; yes, sir. 

Mr. CoHN. And are you familiar with the fact that we also have 
a High Commissioner of Germany under the State Department, and 
that he has a staff of State Department employees under him ? 

Mr. Thompson. Yes, sir ; in Germany. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, did there ever come a time when you had knowl- 
edge of the fact that certain employees of the State Department in 
Germany were desired over here in New York to work with the Ger- 
many Service of the Voice of America ? 

Mr. Thompson. Well, as a normal process, we are attempting to get 
people who have had recent experience in the areas, and there was a 
large group of people in Germany who had been there a long time, and 
to my knowledge some of them wanted to come home. And it would 
have been a good opportunity to bring some people in who had recent 
area experience. 

The Chairman. The question was : Did those in Hi-Cog, the office 
of the High Commissioner of Germany, apply for jobs at the New 
York end of the Voice of America ? 

Mr. Thompson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CoHN. About how many ? 

Mr. Thompson, To my knowledge, four, specifically. 

Mr. CoHN. Very well, sir. So we have this situation. Four State 
Department officials in Germany applied for positions with the Voice 
of America of the State Department here in New York. Is that 
right? 

Mr. Thompson. That is right. 

Mr. Cohn. Now, before they were put on the payroll at the Voice 
of America, was it necessary for them to file form 57's, which are the 
forms one files when seeking Government employment ? 

Mr. Thompson. Yes, plus the fingerprints, plus the personal secu- 
rity data, and so forth, for the normal process. 

Mr. Cohn. And then is it not a fact that a security investigation 
by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other appropriate agen- 
cies followed ? 

Mr. Thompson. As required by Public Law 402, yes. 

]Mr. C'oHN. Do you know whether or not all four of these State De- 
partment officials who desired to come to the Voice of America passed 
tlie security test? 

Mr. Thompson. To my knowledge, only one passed. 



214 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Mr. CoHN. Only one passed the test. After the other three failed 
the security test were they immediately discharged from the State 
Department ? 

Mr. Thompson. No, sir, not to my knowledge. They were not. 

Mr. CoHN. Do you know whether or not any of them still hold high 
positions in the State Department in Germany, in spite of the fact 
that they have failed the security test ? 

Mr. Thompson. I believe that two still are employed in Germany. 

The Chairman. And what are they now doing ? 

Mr. Thompson. They are in the Information Services Division 
there in Germany. 

The Chairman. Is it correct that one of them is named Schlechter? 

Mr. Thompson. Schechter, I believe. 

The Chairman. And is it correct that since he flunked this security 
check, he has been promoted ? 

Mr. Thompson. I don't know the exact sequence, but he has become, 
I believe. Chief of the Kadio Branch in Germany. 

The Chairman. In other words, this man who could not pass the 
security test and therefore was disqualified for a job with the Voice 
is now Chief of the Radio Branch, where ? In Berlin, or Munich ? 

Mr. Thompson. Neither. In Bonn. 

The Chairman. In Bonn. He is in Hi-Cog, the High Commis- 
sioner of Germany. 

Mr. Thompson. Yes, sir. Messages from there frequently bear his 
name. 

The Chairman. And the name of the other man ? 

Mr. Thompson. Well, his predecessor was one of the four who ap- 
plied. Now, he has since resigned, and Schechter replaced him. One 
other man is there. I believe there are three there, as a matter of 
fact. 

The Chairman. Let us see if I get the sequence. The one man 
who flunked the security check originally had the job as Chief of the 
Radio Branch ? 

Mr. Thompson. That is right. 

The Chairman. He resigned. What was his name ? 

Mr. Thompson. He was replaced by Schechter. 

The Chairman. What is his first name ? Do you know ? 

Mr. Thompson. It would be something like Edward or Edmund. 
He is called Ed. 

The Chairman. So Ed Schechter then was promoted to this job. 
So he is now head of the Radio Branch in Bonn ? 

Mr. Thompson. That is right. 

The Chairman. The other individual, who is still working with 
Hi-Cog of the State Department ? 

Mr. Thompson. Mr. Kaghan. 

The Chairman. Mr. Kaghan. How do you spell that ? 

Mr. Thompson. I believe it is K-a-g-h-a-n. 

The Chairman. Do you know his first name ? Theodore Kaghan ? 

Mr. Thompson. That is correct. 

The Chairman. And do you know what his job is as of today ? 

Mr. Thompson. I don't know what it is today. I know what it 
was when I was in Germany. About a little over a year ago, he was 
Chief of the Press Section. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORAIATION PROGRAM 215 

The Chairman. Chief of the Press Section ? 

Mr. Thompson. Yes. 

The Chairman. And in the Voice, do you have any dealing with 
Kaghan or Schechter ? 

Mr. Thompson. Over the past 4 years, we have been developing a 
plant at Munich, Germany. In order to accomplish that, it was neces- 
sary to lease land or buy land, arrange for radio frequencies, con- 
tracts, and so forth. The Voice having no contractual or adminis- 
trative operation in Germany, the normal process requires us to work 
through the High Commissioner's office in Germany, and then on 
through the Eadio Branch, the Information Division. 

The Chairman. In other words, of necessity the Voice in New York 
had to deal rather closely with both Kaghan and Schechter? 

Mr. Thompson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What was your experience with Kaghan and 
Schechter ? Did you find that they were cooperative, when you had 
some anti-Communist material to disseminate? 

Mr. Thompson. Well, specifically, they have not had direct con- 
tact with the content, to my knowledge, of VOA, the content of the 
programs. The context might be that in order to operate this station 
at Munich and in order to complete the 

The Chairman. Is it corrrect, Mr. Thompson, that they set up the 
facilities? 

Mr. Thompson. They should have, as the representative. 

The Chairman. My question is. Did they prove helpful, or did 
they attempt to obstruct any attempt on your part to put on a good 
anti- Communist progi'am ? 

Mr. Thompson. Over the period of the past 4 years, up until 
approximately the last week of this past November, we were develop- 
ing this large plant in Munich, and I would say this : That through 
that period we encountered what I considered to be inordinate delays. 
And I felt that they applied to almost anything we processed through 
that office. 

Senator Potter. This plant you had reference to in Munich was a 
transmitter to get behind the Iron Curtain ; is that true ? 

Mr. Thompson. Yes; and to cover other areas. 

Senator Potter. I think it would be helpful if we could identify 
a few dates. When did these men apply for positions in the Voice, 
and get turned down for security reasons, approximately ? 

Mr. Thompson. I don't believe they all applied at the same time. 
I brought back from Germany, in November of 1951, or late October 
of 1951, some of the applications and placed them in the clearance 
process. I believe, in the late spring of 1949, or the summer of '49, 
there had been applications of two others. So, as a matter of fact, 
I believe I brought two back at that time from Germany. 

Senator Potter. So at the time they had been working at least more 
than a year in the State Department in Germany ? 

Mr. Thompson. Oh, yes. 

The Chairman. Senator Symington? 

Senator Symington. Do you know why these men were turned 
down for security reasons? 

Mr. Thompson. We do not see the security files. We put a man 
in process, and if he comes on duty, he is cleared, as far as we know. 



216 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Senator Symington. How do you know they were turned down 
at all? 

Mr. Thompson. They didn't come on duty. 

Senator Symington. Well, they might have been sick, might they 
not? 

Mr. Thompson, They were continuing to work, sir, in Germany. 

Senator Symington. You saw no written evidence that they were 
turned down for security ? 

Mr. Thompson. In the case of one man, I did see the written 
evidence, yes. And in the case of another, I was given the word 
on the telephone that, "He will not be coming on duty." 

The Chairman. In other words, you satisfied yourself, either by 
seeing the written evidence or by telephone conversations with 
Security, that those men had been rejected, that they would not be 
coming with the Voice ? 

Mr. Thompson. Our conversations are with the personnel office, who 
get the information from Security. 

Senator Symington. In one case you saw it in writing, and in the 
other case, they told it to you verbally, is that it ? 

Mr. Thompson. Yes, sir. Due to a change in my spot in the organ- 
ization, these memorandums that a man is coming on duty or he is not 
coming on duty did not come to me, because they were not the area of 
the organization for which I have responsibility. I might say that 
the man who was cleared — I received the memorandum that he would 
be entering on duty on a given day. 

Mr. CoHN. One of the four was cleared ? 

Mr. Thompson. That is right. 

Mr. CoHN. And he did come on duty? 

Mr. Thompson. That is right. 

Mr. CoHN. What was his name? 

Mr. Thompson. Harold Wright. 

Mr. CoHN. And he is still with you ? 

Mr. Thompson. Yes. 

Mr. CoHN. I might ask you this. When Mr. Schechter, one of 
these Security turndowns, was promoted, within the last month or so, 
do you know whether the Director of Operations, Mr. Puhan, made 
an objection to Washington? 

Mr. Thompson. Yes; I was sitting in his office when he made 
objection. 

Mr. CoHN. He made objection to the State Department in Wash- 
ington ; is that right ? 

Mr. Thompson. Yes. 

Mr. CoHN. I want to get back to this. In other words, your testi- 
mony is that these people were turned down in Security. In your 
dealings with them, then, to get transmission facilities to get the broad- 
casts behind the Soviet zone, you encountered ' what you have called 
here inordinate delay, which interfered with your project. Now, 
did you make a complaint to Washington about this ? 

I will withdraw that. 

Did you speak to anybody in Washington about this situation. 

Mr. Thompson. Yes. 

Mr. CoHN. To whom in Washington did you speak about the inordi- 
nate delays occasioned by these people who had been turned down? 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 217 

Mr, Thompson. Specifically, I was in Washington in connection 
with the budget preparation and hearings, and there is always a lot of 
time when you are waiting, and so I was taking care of other affairs, 
and I began to look into some of the other problems we had. Among 
them were delays of communications and followthroughs. 

Mr. CoHN. Did you speak to any one person in the State Depart- 
ment about this situation you have just described to us? 

Mr. Thompsox. I mentioned to Mr. Harris that it seemed to me 
we were having too much delay in Germany on most everything we 
attempted to accomplish. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, which Mr. Harris are we talking about? 

Mr. Thompson. I am talking about the Mr. Harris who is in the 
office at 1778 Pennsylvania Avenue, there. 

Mr. CoHN. Is that Mr. Reed Harris ? 

Mr. Thompson. That is Reed Harris; yes, sir. 

Mr. CoHN. He was the Deputy Administrator of the International 
Information Administration ? 

Mr. Thompson. He is now. 

Mr. CoHN. And he still is. Did you call to Mr. Harris' attention 
the fact that there had been these inordinate delays in Germany, in 
connection with your attempt to build facilities to get into the Soviet 
zone? 

Mr. Thompson. Yes; I told him the whole thing was taking too 
much time. 

Mr. CoHN. And did you suggest to him who the people were who 
were responsible for these delays ? What did you say to him ? 

Mr. Thompson. Specifically, that these things were taking too much 
delay, too much time, that it seemed to me that they would continue 
to take a lot of time "as long as we fooled around with a bunch of 
pseudo-Americans." 

Mr. CoHN. You said "as long as we fooled around with a bunch 
of pseudo-Americans." Did you have reference to these security 
turndowns ? 

Mr. Thompson. I had reference to the people in the Information 
Services Division there in Germany, yes; because all of our business 
had to go through them. 

Mr. CoHN. What did Mr. Harris say ? 

Mr. Thompson. He said, "You don't understand the organization." 

Mr. CoHN. That is all he said on that point; is that right? 

Mr. Thompson. That is right. 

Mr. CoHN. Do you know whether or not any action has been taken 
against these people ? 

Mr. Thompson. Not to my knowledge. 

The Chairman. Senator McClellan ? 

Senator McClellan. To whom did you refer when you were speak- 
ing to Mr. Harris ? 

Mr. Thompson. Sir ? 

Senator McClellan, You said you referred to certain people over 
there as pseudo- Americans. To whom did you refer? Can you be 
specific ? 

Mr. Thompson, Specifically, our communications had to go through 
the Information Services Division in Germany. 

Mr. CoiiN. Do you mean these two men we have been talking about, 
Kaghan and Schechter ? 



218 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAIM 

Mr. Thompson. Over the period of the past 4 years there was Mr. 
Charley Lewis, there was Mr. Theodore Kaghan, there was Mr. 
Schechter. 

Senator McClellan. Those three ? 

Mr. Thompson. Those three particularly. 

Senator McClellan, So you were referring to tAvo of those who 
had been rejected on security tests? 

Mr. Thompson. Sir, at that time I was referring to all three. Now, 
we have gotten off onto two, because one of them has resigned since. 

Senator McClellan. Well, what I was trying to identify was the 
two that we have been talking about here. Do you feel that they were 
the cause, and do you attribute these inordinate delays to their con- 
duct, to their either inefficiency or incompetency, or by design, as 
we have been talking about ? 

Mr. Thompson. Well, I attributed it to slow handling. 

The Chairman. May I interrupt? Lewis also had been turned 
down, on the security probe. Right ? 

Mr. Thompson. That is right. 

The Chairman. That is Charles Lewis ? 

Mr. Thompson. That is right. 

Mr. CoHN. Did you actually see Lewis' rejection? 

Mr. Thompson. I received a note, or I saw a note, that he would not 
be employed in New York. 

Senator McClellan. Let me ask you, at this point, Is there some 
other reason why they may not have been employed, other than that 
they failed the security test, or loyalty test ? 

Mr. Thompson. Not to my knowledge. 

Senator McClellan. Well, let us get it clear. 

Mr. Thompson. Well, they could not have been declared unqualified, 
because they were holding jobs already. 

Senator McClellan. They were holding comparable jobs already? 

Mr. Thompson. Roughly comparable jobs. 

Senator McClellan. And therefore, by that deduction, you could 
see no other reason why they would be rejected for a similar position 
over here ? 

jMr. Thompson. They were placed in process, sir, to establish the 
security cleai'ance. The security clearance did not come through. 
They did not come on duty. 

The Chairman. Senator Symington ? 

Senator Symington. When you mentioned your conversation with 
Mr. Reed Harris, you said that he told you that you did not under- 
stand the organization. Is that right ? 

Mr. Thompson. Yes, sir. 

Senator Symington. Was that the end of the conversation ? 

Mr, Thompson. No ; I told him I could read, and I thought I under- 
stood it quite well. 

Senator Symington. And then what did he say ? 

Mr. Thompson. Oh, we were then involved in budget preparation 
and many other things came up at that time. 

Senator Symington, So this matter was dropped ; was it ? 

Mr, Thompson, Yes; as far as Harris and I were concerned. 

Senator Symington. Did you ever discuss it with him again ? 

Mr, Thompson. I probably did, sir. But my contacts with Mr. 
Harris are not very frequent. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 219 

Senator Symington. Do you think that he would agree with 3^011 
that the way you put it today is entirely right ? 

]Mr. Thompson. I assume he would, if he tells the truth. 

Senator Symington. ]\Ir. Chairman, I would suggest that Mr. 
Thompson be down Tuesday, too, if convenient. I believe that a wit- 
ness who is being discussed as Mr. Harris is today ought to have every 
opportunity to deny these charges if he thinks they are wrong, and 
I feel sure you agree with that. 

The Chairman. I think it is an excellent idea to have Mr. Thomp- 
son down. One of the reasons why we came to New York today was 
because I felt it was cheaper to transport the Senators up here than 
to bring all the witnesses down. I don't like to bring an unnecessarily 
large number of witnesses down. However, you will be ordered to be 
there on Tuesday. Can you do that all right ? 

Mr. Thompson. Yes, sir. 

Senator Symington. My only point is that Mr. Harris is being 
attacked. I know nothing of Mr. Harris. I think, however, he 
ought to be allowed to defend himself in front of these witnesses who 
have attacked him. 

The Chairman. Yes. I am not sure if you would call it an attack. 

Mr. Thompson. It is not an attack at all, sir. 

The Chairman. May I say this: None of the witnesses that have 
been interviewed by the staff appeared at all anxious to come in and 
give adverse testimony upon their fellow workers. It is an unpleasant 
task for them, and I doubt whether we should call it an attack. 

Senator Symington. Well, let us say "discussed," if "discussed" is 
all right. 

The Chairman. You will be ordered to be down at 10 : 30 Tuesday 
morning. 

I should point out. Senator Symington, that we have had about 
seven or eight witnesses in executive session this morning. I believe 
it will be necessary to bring some of those to Washington also. We 
will discuss that with you when we get through. We had a very size- 
able number of witnesses in executive session. 

Mr. CoHN. Mr. Thompson, before you assumed your present position 
at the Voice, you had something to do with personnel. Is that right ? 

Mr. Thompson. Well, as the Associate Chief for Operations in per- 
sonnel matters, insofar as VOA had a responsibility for personnel, yes. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, you are familiar with the situation wherein the 
Voice has certain full-time employees,^ and then there are other people 
who are on a purchase order basis, which means they write scripts 
which are purchased by the Voice and used over the Voice. Is that 
right? 

Mr. Thompson. Yes. They are used after they have been approved 
properly by the language groups. 

Mr. CoHN. Did there ever come to your attention a situation wherein 
a person or persons have been turned down for security reasons as 
full-time employees of the Voice and then turned up on the purchase 
order basis writing scripts for the Voice? 

Mr. Thompson. Well, we established a procedure 

Mr. CoHN. Did any situation such as I have outlined ever come to 
your attention ? 

Mr. Thompson. Yes. 



220 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Mr. CoHN. In other words, a person is turned down as a full-time 
employee with the Voice, having failed a security check, and then 
he turns up writing scripts? 

Mr. Thompson. Not as a full-time employee, sir. They were turned 
down in the process of either being placed on a part-time basis or full 
time, or just given a security clearance to assure that if we used them 
very often there was nothing wrong. 

Mr. CoHN. But the point is the person was turned down, and then 
turned up writing scripts on a purchase-order basis ; is that right? 

Mr. Thompson. Or being used on a purchase-order basis. I don't 
know for what purpose. ^ 

Mr. CoHN. Did you object to that practice? 

Mr. Thompson. Of course. 

Mr. CoHN. And did you find that the entire purchase-order system 
had many defects from a security point of view ? 

The Chairman. I think we should explain what you mean by 
"purchase order." By "purchase order," you mean you would buy 
the writings of a certain individual, paying him so much for each 
particular job? 

Mr. Thompson. Or buy his voice to broadcast a script in a language. 

The Chairman. So that your testimony is that after a man flunked 
the security or loyalty test, when he could not get clearance to work 
for the Voice, then somebody somehow bypassed that by buying his 
stuff on a piece basis, instead of hiring him full time to work and 
write ? Is that your testimony ? 

Mr. Thompson. Sir, I issued instructions that people who were used 
on a purchase order more than so many times in 2 months 

The Chairman. You did not get my question. 

Mr. Thompson. Should not be further used unless they were placed 
in security-clearance process and turned up cleared. 

The Chairman. You did not get my question. If I understood 
your testimony correctly, it is this, and if I am wrong, correct me : 
that when certain individuals could not pass the loyalty or security 
tests, in other words when they were turned down by the Security 
and Loyalty Division, then, in order to get around that loyalty order, 
their work was purchased on a piece basis in some cases. Is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Thompson. Some people that were turned down were used on 
purchase order; yes. 

The Chairman. And you consider that highly improper, I assume? 

Mr. Thompson. I didn't think it was right. 

The Chairman. Can you tell us who was responsible for that ? 

Mr. Thompson. That, sir, is difficult to say, for the simple reason 
that I didn't have an enforcement organization to stay behind that 
sort of thing. 

The Chairman. The thing that impresses me, and I assume all 
members of this committee, is that it seems impossible in the inter- 
national information program to pin down responsibility. You find 
complete administrative chaos, apparently. No one knew quite who 
the boss was. We find unusual activities, some that you cannot account 
for merely by stupidity. And we try to find the chain of command, 
and we have tremendous difficulty. 

Now, let us say that someone, John Jones, was found disloyal, and 
for that reason he could not get a job in the State Department. And 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 221 

I imagine lie must have been rather bad, when he was turned down. 
Then you find him turning up writing piecemeal, his stuff being pur- 
chased on a piece basis. Certainly he is as bad writing on a piece or 
job basis as though he were working 8 or 9 hours a day over there 
in a particular office. 

My question, now, is, Wlio did that? Who is responsible for him? 
Wlio allowed this to go on ? Why was it not stopped ? 

Mr. Thompson. Purchase-order people, sir, were used to write 
scripts, by the language desk. Their services were requested by the 
language desk. They placed a requisition for those services. They 
went through the administrative process outside of the VOA organi- 
zation into the New York administrative office, who actually placed 
the purchase order. 

Now, a number of people were used for announcers. They were 
arranged for by the Production Section It is those two groups who 
have the requesting responsibility. The Fiscal Section has the paying 
responsibility. I think the responsibility for those two acts is fairly 
clear. 

The Chairman. I am going to ask Mr. David Schine, who is our 
consultant, to contact the proper officials in the Voice and get a list 
of all those people who were turned down on security grounds, or 
loyalty gi'ounds, who nevertheless had their work purchased by the 
Voice; and the name of the individual who was responsible for the 
purchasing of the material ; and have that furnished to the committee. 

Now, I know that is almost an impossible task. You will be going 
in circles over here for, I assume, weeks, to run that down. But that 
is something I think the committee must have. 

Would you not think so, Senator McClellan ? 

Senator McClellan. I think it should be obtained. I do not know 
whether he can obtain it. 

You may have to summons in some responsible authority on the 
Voice and let him supply it. 

The Chairman. I may say I have a very competent young man 
here. He has a pocketful of subpenas, and he will use those if 
necessary. 

Senator Jackson. Why not simply ask the acting head of the Voice, 
here, to supply that information? He is responsible, I assume; or 
whoever is the directing head. 

The Chairman. Any further questions ? 

Mr. Cohn. Yes ; just 1 or 2 more. 

Is it a fact, Mr. Thompson, that when this situation was discovered, 
a certain man was selected to take charge of these purchase-order 
people ? 

Mr. Thompson. In August of 1951, 1 sat down and wrote a straight- 
forward instruction 

Mr. CoHN. Do you know a man by the name of Fisher Northrup ? 

Mr. Thompson. Yes. 

Mr. Cohn. Was he given any assignment after this time in con- 
nection with the purchase-order people ? 

Mr. Thoimpson. In connection with the enforcement of the instruc- 
tion that I wrote, he was given the job, along with a secretary, of 
assuring that that instruction was carried out to the letter. 

Mr. Cohn. All right. Did you assume at the time that Mr. North- 
rup was given this assignment that he, himself, had been cleared for 
security purposes ? 



222 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Mr. Thompson. Oh, yes. He was on the full-time payroll, and he 
was cleared. 

Mr. CoHN. All right. During what period of time did Mr. North- 
rup hold this position ? 

Mr. Thompson. In August of 1951, around until probably Septem- 
ber or October or 1952. 

Mr. CoHN. In September or October of 1952, was this person who 
had been placed in charge of this himself dismissed for security 
reasons ? 

Mr. Thompson. I am so informed, because he is not there. 

Mr. CoHN. I have no further questions of this witness, Mr. Chair- 
man. 

The Chairman. I would like to say at this time that I want to com- 
pliment the new Secretary of State for the attitude he has taken. He 
has taken an attitude of helpfulness toward this committee, an atti- 
tude that he has no obligation to defend some of the unusual people 
and some of the unusual practices that he found when he took over. 
And I hope that this committee can be very helpful. 

I would like to compliment the members of this committee. We have ■ 
3 members who are Democrats and 4 Republicans. So far this has i 
not been handled as a political matter. I have found that the Demo- i 
crats on the committee have been just as eager and just as helpful in ! 
digging out anything that is improper, and just as careful to protect 
the rights of the witnesses as the members of the majority party, and I 
I am very happy that we have 3 very, very competent and good Amer- \ 
icans on the Democratic side of this committee, as well as 4 on the 
Republican side. 

We will adjourn until 10 : 30 Monday morning in Washington, D. C. 
We are having a hearing Monday. _ i 

Mr. Harris will be on hand to testify on Tuesday morning. ! 

(Whereupon, at 3 : 55 p. m., a recess was taken until 10 : 30 a. m., 
Monday, March 2, 1953.) ! 



APPENDIX 

Exhibit No. 9 

Office of Security, Department of State, 

February 18, 1953. 

office letter no. 39 

To : All employees. 

From : John W. Ford. 

Subject : Memorandum for the record. 

The attached memorandum is being directed to all employees of the OflBce of 
Security. I cannot stress too strongly the importance of this directive and its 
significance to the Department. 

I must insist that each employee adhere strictly to these instructions and any 
deviation should be called to my personal attention for decision. 

February 12, 1953. 
memorandum for the record 

Copies to : Mr. Sohm, Mr. Tate, Mr. Boykin, Mr. Montague, Mr. Kimball. 

The following has been approved by General Smith and Mr. Phleger, the legal 
adviser : 

"General Smith ruled as follows : 

"(1) Employees should be instructed through their superiors that they 
should observe the provisions of existing Executive orders, Presidential directives 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 223 

and regulations prohibiting the disclosure of loyalty, security, and other executive 
information ; that these should be considered in force until replaced or voided ; 

"(2) That security officers should be instructed to abide by additional instruc- 
tions, written and verbal, under which they have been operating (such as the 
Manual of Investigations) ; 

"(3) That it is a matter of individual employee discretion as to whether he 
talks informally with a member of a committee or subcommittee staff without 
a Senator being present ; and 

"(4) No employee has the right to, nor shall, provide files, records, or internal 
executive correspondence in the Department's custody without specific permission 
of his authorized superiors. 

"In concurring in the above, Mr. Phleger noted as follows : 

"It is my understanding that it is implicit in the attached that every request 
received should be brought immediately to the attention of a superior to the 
end that a proper decision as to the applicability of the directives and instructions 
can be made and in doubtful cases such decision should be made by the highest 
authority." 

E. K. Meade, Jr. 

Distributed to Washington field office personnel February 19, 1953. 



Exhibit No. 12 

[Translation] 

French Language Script Carried on ICI New York, February 16, 1952 

Subject: Whittaker Chambers articles in Saturday Evening Post. 

Included in weekly Magazine Digest 

Passing this week in front of our newspaper and magazine stands — weU not 
really stands for in New York they are much larger wooden structures — we 
were struck by an unexjjected sight : The Saturday Evening Post had changed 
its cover. The first time since 1899. 

Yes, for the first time, instead of a humoristic painting in full color, a typical 
scene of American life to which we are accustomed, the Saturday Evening Post 
was there on the stand with a plain white cover edged in blue. 

But that was only a detail. The important thing was the title in big print 
"History of the Hiss case by Whittaker Chambers," "one of the great books of 
our times." 

It is a fact that, though the Hiss case was not closely followed in France, 
it has enthralled the American public, and the Saturday Evening Post was 
giving evidence of shrewd editorial policy in serializing in advance of publica- 
tion date, several chapters of Whittaker Chambers' book Witness. 

This title of Witness may lead to some confusion for, if Chambers was the 
principal witness in the Hiss prosecution whicli led to the condemnation of 
Alger Hiss, president of the Carnegie Foundation for International Peace and 
ex-high official in the Department of State, in this book Chambers appears in 
the role of witness in an infinitely more imiwrtant conflict than the treason 
trial ; in that very conflict which opposes two dynamic ideologies : Freedom and 
communism. 

And Chambers is in a particularly strong position from which to bear wit- 
ness for he had been for 13 years an influential Communist, having even served 
as courier in a secret espionage network working for Russia. It was in this 
capacity that he became acquainted with Alger Hiss, who handed over to him 
confidential documents from the files of the State Department. He was there- 
fore able to denounce him to the authorities last year. 

But Chambers does not feel that the real conflict to which he is bearing wit- 
ness lies in a court of justice with all the usual trimmings of famous trial cases, 
the false witness, the double and triple identities, microfilms being ferried by 
secret foreign agents and traitors. Chambers' contention is that the true and 
important conflict of our times lies in the souls of men, for it involves all the 
principles, all the standards of value by which we live. Values at the same 
time religious, moral, intellectual, social, political, and economic. 

It is for this reason no doubt that critics estimate that Witness is to be 
considered a book of truly lasting value. In it Chambers tells of his personal 



224 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

struggle with the forces of evil, in this case communism, of his successful 
struggle to shake oft the yoke that bound him. And this, through the power 
of faith he found faith in absolute freedom. 

He writes further that freedom is a basic need of the soul of man and that 
religion and freedom are indivisible, and he states that all true Communists 
who break with the party must go through a profound religious crisis in their 
lives. 

Com.tnunism triumphs, according to Chambers, when man, in the name of 
the intellect, forsakes God and he adds that those who come out of the party 
are poor witnesses because they are witnesses against something and not for 
something. 



Exhibit No. 13 

Excerpt From Testimony of February 14, 1953, Senate Permanent 
Subcommittee on Investigations 

Mr. CoHN. Will you tell us briefly what Mr. Matthews said to you? 

Miss Lenkeith. He told us briefly that he was contemplating some day leaving 
the Voice of America and devoting himself to forming in Rockland County in an 
old Dutch house a group dedicated to collective living, which would embody the 
good aspects of Marxism, which anticommunism and communism had neglected, 
collective living, and he asked me whether I would join the group. He said the 
children would be brought up together. I, being interviewed by my employer in 
my first appearance at the office, said I had no children. He said that could be 
arranged. So I said I had no husband. He said that didn't matter. That could 
be worked out. And later he added — well, I was curious why he wanted me, 
having just met me. Anyway I asked him what kind of people he wanted to 
bring there. I was a little bit sort of stunned. And he told me, he said, "Well, 
people who have no dogmatic religious beliefs." 



Exhibit No. 14 



National Bureau of Standards, f 

Central Radio Propagation Laboratory, 1 

Fehritary 26, 1953. \ 

Comparative Study of Radio Transmission Paths From Seia.ttle, San ■ 

Francisco, And San Diego to PiaPiNo, China ! 

i 

This report presents a comparative study of radio propagation paths to Pelplng, i 
China, originating in Seattle, San Francisco, and San Diego in the United i 
States. In general the problem is to determine the p«wer required at each of the | 
transmission sites to override 90 percent of the atmospheric radio noise (static) , 
at Peiping and give satisfactory broadcast quality of reception. This study i 
employed the cost recent information available in the Central Radio Propaga- '■ 
tion Laboratory of the National Bureau of Standards, in addition to standard ■ 
procedures for such calculations which have already been published. \ 

Due consideration has been given to variations in radio propagation condi- ■ 
tions with season, time of day, and stage of sunspot cycle. The study was made ; 
for the epoch of sunspot minimum and is applicable for the next several years. ' 
Revision of the study will be necessary for application at times of high sunspot ; 
numbers. Seasonal fluctuations are taken care of by applying the study for the i 
typical months of June, September, and December. I 

Since propagation conditions vary from day to day within 1 months, the study j 
has sought to ascertain the minimum power required at the various sites to de- ' 
liver a satisfactory signal during these months on the best 10 percent of the days, i 
the best 50 percent of the days, and the best 90 percent of the days. Occasionally, ' 
when propagation conditions are severely disturbed, no reasonable power at any : 
of these sites will be able to deliver a satisfactory sismal to the target area. 

Since the Seattle-Peiping path passes much closer to the auroral zone than : 
either the San Francisco-Peiping or the San Diego-Peiping path, due account : 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAIVI 225 

must be taken of the auroral zone effects which greatly increase the transmission 
loss in high latitudes. A map of the paths is shown in exhibit 1.^ 

General conclusions can be drawn from the results so far obtained. To assure 
delivery of a satisfactory signal at a given time of the day on at least 10 percent 
of the days, a transmitter at Seattle would require about 5 times as much power 
as a transmitter at San Francisco or San Diego. To assure a satisfactory signal 
for a given time of the day on at least 50 percent of the days a transmitter at 
Seattle would require about 15 times as much power as a transmitter at San 
Francisco or at San Diego. To deliver a satisfactory signal on at least 90 percent 
of the days at a given time of the day a transmitter located at Seattle would 
require about 50 times the power of a transmitter at San Francisco or at San 
Diego. San IVancisco and San Diego do not possess any appreciable advantage 
with respect to each other. 

On about 5 or 10 days out of the year no satisfactory broadcast signal can be 
delivered to the target area from San Francisco or San Diego, using transmitters 
of reasonable power. Such days will occur about twice as frequently for the 
Seattle-Peiping path. It is further noted that because of the limited number of 
frequencies available for broadcasting, there are a certain few hours of the day 
when no signal can be delivered from any of the sites during the years under 
consideration in this report. 

The above conclusions are supported by the attached exhibits. Exhibits 2 to 
10 show the optimum frequencies which can be employed for propagation over 
the several paths at various times of the day during the three typical months, 
June, September, and December. 

Exhibits 11 to 19 show the powers required at the three transmitter sites to 
deliver a suitable signal on at least 10 percent of the days, at least 50 percent of 
the days, and at least 90 percent of the days for the various months, assuming 
very efficient transmitting antennas are used (20-decibel gain). Frequencies on 
which the transmissions will be made were selected on the basis of the frequency 
study shown in exhibits 2 to 10, with due regard for frequency allocations made 
internationally for high-frequency broadcast purposes. 

Exhibits 20 to 22 show the hours of the day at which satisfactory signals will 
be delivered on at least 10 percent of the days, on at least 50 percent of the days, 
and on at least 90 percent of the days for various transmitter powers at the 3 
sites. All of the above curves are based upon minimum broadcast standards. 
Increasing the power of the transmitter increases the quality of the reception 
and the ease with which reception can be accomplished. This is particularly 
significant if it is necessary to overcome jamming. Under these conditions, the 
signal should considerably exceed that required for satisfactory broadcast 
reception. 

For comparison purposes corresponding data are presented in exhibits 23 to 
28 in which no allowance has been made for the auroral zone. These show by 
comparison with the preceding exhibits that auroral effects are serious on the 
Seattle-Peiping path, but are of minor consequence on the others. 



The exhibits mentioned may be found in the files of the subcommittee. 



INDEX 



Pag« 

Allen, George 212 

Auberjonois, Mr 164, 168, 169, 176-178, 181, 184 

Baldanza, Stephen 153 

Berman, Harold 157-160 

Boykin, Mr 163, 177, 222 

Carrigan, Charles 188 

Chambers, Whittaker 168, 169, 170, 172, 173, 175, 176, 177, 178, 223, 224 

Compton, Dr. Wilson M 187, 188, 198, 204, 205, 207, 212 

Dirksen, Everett M 175 

Dooher, Gerald F. P 189 

Testimony 190-211 

Ducloux, Walter 168, 169, 170, 172, 181 

Dulles, John Foster 163 

Ferber, Edna 179, 181, 182 

Fitzgerald, Scott 183, 184 

Ford, John W 162, 163, 177, 222 

Francis, Mr 197, 208 

Fulling, Virgil H. 

Testimony 151-162 

Glazer, Dr. Sidney 188 

Testimony 189-211 

Goldman, Robert 158, 160 

Harris, Reed 188, 193-199, 205, 207, 208, 212, 213, 217, 218, 219 

Henry, Marcelle 173-175, 178-183 

Herrick, Dwight 168, 171, 173 

Hiss, Alger 170, 223 

Hook, Sidney 174 

Horneffer, Michael G 168, 176 

Testimony 177-185 

Kaghan, Theodore 214, 215, 217, 218 

Kimball, Mr 222 

Kretsmann, Mr 171 

Lenkeith, Dr. Nancy 162, 178, 224 

Testimony 164^177 

Lewis, Charles 218 

Lourie, Mr 163 

Malik, Jacob A 184 

Malten, Bill 174 

Mathews, Troup 164, 166, 170, 173, 176, 177, 224 

Matson, Mr ^1 162 

Meade, E. K., Jr 163,223 

Montague, Mr 222 

Morton, Mr 212 

Morton, Alfred 198, 204 

Northrup, Fisher 221, 222 

Oren, Mr 200 

Phillips, John 183, 184 

Phleger, Mr 163, 222, 223 

Puhan, Alfred 168, 173, 174, 197, 204, 216 

Raquello, Edward ISO, 181 

Schechter, Ed 214-218 

Schwartz, Solomon 206 

Smith, General 163, 177, 222 

Sohm, Mr 222 

Stoner, General 187, 188 

I 



II INDEX 

Tate Mr *^' 

Taylor, Donald ---"--"////."IIIIIIIIII^^Ill^yisBrfs"^^^ 

Thompson, James _ _ 211 

Testimony I~ ~ ~ ~ 9lo_99o 

Wilson, Edmund ___'_ ^1__"_7_'_~~_7_7_~_7_"__ 178 



Wright, Harold. 



216 



Zorthian, Barry ~~ _ -j^gg 

o 



• / 

STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM- 
VOICE OF AMERICA '■ 



HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON 
INVESTIGATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON 

GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

EIGHTY-THIRD CONGRESS 

PIKST SESSION 
PURSUANT TO 

S. Res. 40 



A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COMMITTEE ON 

GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS TO EMPLOY TEMPORARY 

ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL AND INCREASING THE 

LIMIT OF EXPENDITURES 



PART 4 



MARCH 2, 1953 



Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Operations 




UNITED STATES 

GOA'ERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1953 



Boston Public Library j 

Superintendent of Documents ■ 

JUN 1 - 1S53 



COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS 

JOSEPH R. McCarthy, Wisconsin, Chairman j 

KARLE. MUNDT, South Dakota JOHN L. McCLELLAN. Arkansas j 

MARGARET CHASE SMITH, Maine CLYDE R. HOEY, North Carolina , 

HENRY C. DWORSHAK, Idaho HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, Minnesota ! 

EVERETT Mckinley DIRKSEN, Illinois HENRY M. JACKSON. Washington j 

JOHN MARSHALL BUTLER, Maryland JOHN F. KENNEDY, Massachusetts ] 

CHARLES E. POTTER, Michigan STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri | 

Walter L. Reynolds, Chief Clerk , 



Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations 
JOSEPH R. McCarthy, Wisconsin, Chairman 
KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas 

EVERETT Mckinley DIRKSEN, Illinois HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington 
CHARLES E. POTTER, Michigan STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri 

Roy M. Cohn, Chief Coufisel 
Fkancis D. Flanagan, General Counsel and Staff Director 

II 



CONTENTS 



Page 

Appendix 324 

Index I 

Textimony of — 

Auberjonois, Fernand, Policy Unit, Voice of America 255 

Cocutz, Dr. John, Acting Chief, Rumanian Service, Voice of America. 228 

Kretzmann, Edwin M. J., policy adviser, Voice of America 305, 308 

Lyons, Roger, Director, Religious Programing, Voice of America.- 298,308 

Shephard, Mrs. Patricia 320, 324 

Strong, Allen, producer-announcer, Voice of America 321 

SCHEDULE OF EXHIBITS 

Introduced Appears 
on page on page 

17. Memorandum from John Cocutz to Fov D. Kohler, August 18, 

1952 J 233 324 

18. Excerpt from memorandum from John Cocutz to Voice of 

America, January 26, 1951 253 326 

19. Copy of script entitled "Five Evils of Marxism," by Dr. 

John Cocutz 253 facing326 

20. Income tax return of Fernand Auberjonois, 1951 263 (i) 

21. Statements by Fernand Auberjonois, March 2, 1953 268 (») 

22. Copv of script on Edna Ferber's The Giant, December 2, 

1952 279 (1) 

23. Memorandum from Fernand Auberjonois to Michael Ries, 

May 29, 1951 280 (') 

24. Memorandum re Media Productions, Inc., September 20, 

1951 294 326 

25. Statement of Media Productions, Inc., September 13, 1951-. 297 328 

26. Document entitled "Attention, Mr. Cesanne". 297 (i) 

27. Copv of scripts, Voice of America, February 12, 1951, and 

February 12, 1952 297 0) 

28. Memorandum from Fernand Auberjonois to Alfred M. 

Puhan, February 1, 1950 297 328 

29. Memorandum entitled "Trucking Notes" 297 (i) 

30. Memorandum from Fernand Auberjonois to Michael Ries, 

March 26, 1951 297 329 

31. Copy of script entitled "Back to God," Voice of America 323 (') 

SUPPLEMENTAL DATA 

1. Letter from Roger Lyons to Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, 

March 10, 1953.. 1 330 

1 May be found in tbe files of the subcommittee. 

ni 



STATE DEPAKTMENT INFORMATION PROGEAM- VOICE 
OF AMERICA 



MONDAY, MARCH 2, 1953 

United States Senate, 
Senate Permanent Subcommittee on 

Investigations of the Commiitee 

ON Government Operations, 

Washington, D. G. 
The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 40, agreed 
to January 30, 1953, at 10 : 30 a. m., in room 357, Senate Office Building, 
Senator Joseph R. McCarthy (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin; 
Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota ; Senator Everett 
M. Dirksen, Republican, Illinois; Senator John L. McClellan, Demo- 
crat, Arkansas; Senator Henry M. Jackson, Democrat, Washington; 
and Senator Stuart Symington, Democrat, Missouri. 

Present also : Roy Cohn, chief counsel ; Donald Surine, assistant 
counsel, David Schine, chief consultant; Henry Hawkins, inves- 
tigator, and Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk. 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 
Before commencing the testimony, I would like to clear something 
up for the members of the conunittee who may not have been present. 
I note an article in one of the New York papers; I will read a para- 
graph from it. This is especially for the benefit of the other Senators, 
who may have been deceived by this : 

Derogatory testimony about Troup Mathews, editor of the Voice's French 
section, led him to issue an indignant statement. He said he would be willing 
to deny under oath the fantastic tales that were told about him, but the 
McCarthy group had not given him a chance to testify and answer the charges 
against him. 

I merely want to point out that this is clearly false; that Troup 
Mathews has been in executive session ; that he has been asked whether 
lie wanted to appear in public session and told that he could if he 
cared to. He has informed the chairman that he will think that over 
and decide whether he wants to appear in public session or not. I 
merely mention this, not because I hope to reform this paper, which 
seems to find an anti-Communist under every bed, but so the members 
who are present will know what the situation is and will not be 
deceived by it. 

Incidentally, this is in the Herald Tribune. 

Is there anyone here from the New York Herald Tribune ? 

Who is your first witness, Mr. Counsel ? 

Mr. Cohn. Dr. Cocutz, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Dr. Cocutz, will you come forward ? 

227 



228 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Will yon raise your rio:ht hand, Doctor? In this matter now in 
hearing before the committee do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, 
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Dr. CocuTz. I do. 

The Chairman. May I ask counsel, I understand that Mr. Auber- 
jonois, head of the French desk, was ordered to be here this morning. 

Mr. CoHN. He was, Mr. Chairman. 

Tlie Chairman. And as far as you know, he has not showed up. 
Is that correct? 

Mr. CoHN. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Is Mr. Auberjonois in the room ? 

It is possible that the weather made it impossible for him to get 
here, so I think we should take no action until we find out whether 
he has a valid excuse for not being here. If he has not, I assume 
that the matter should be taken up in executive session as to what 
action the committee should take. 

I may say for the benefit of the committee that Mr. Auberjonois 
was before the committee in executive session Saturday morning. He 
was asked whether he wanted to be notified personally or have his 
lawyer notified when he should come down here. He was accom- 
panied by counsel. We were asked to notify the attorney. The 
attorney was notified yesterday. Is that correct ? 

Mr. CoHN. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. His home was called 
in addition. 

The Chairman. Will you proceed with this witness ? 

Mr. CoHN. What is your full name, please ? 

TESTIMONY OF DR. JOHN COCUTZ, ACTING CHIEF, RUMANIAN 
SERVICE, VOICE OF AMERICA 

Dr. CocuTz. John C-o-c-u-t-z, Cocutz. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, Dr. Cocutz, what is your position at the present 
time? 

Dr. Cocutz. I am the Acting Chief of the Rumanian Service of 
the Voice of America. 

Mr. CoHN. You are the Acting Chief of the Rumanian Service of 
the Voice of America. 

The Chairman. Would you spell your name again. Doctor? 

Dr. Cocutz. C-o-c-u-t-z. 

The Chairman. And your first name ? 

Dr. Cocutz. John. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, Dr. Cocutz, are you head of the department of 
philosophy at the University of Georgia ? 

Dr. Cocutz. Yes ; I am still head of the department of philosophy 
there. I just took a leave of absence from the university. 

Mr. CoHN. You are on leave to enable you to assume your duties 
at the Voice of America ? 

Dr. CocuTZ. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. How long have you been connected with the 
university. Dr. Cocutz? 

Dr. Cocutz. Since 1945 I have been teaching at the University of 
Georgia, Atlanta division. 

Senator Mundt. Until when? 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 229 

Dr. CocuTz. Until last summer. I came at the Voice June 17. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, would you tell the chairman and the committee 
why you left the university, took a leave of absence as head of the 
philosophy department at the University of Georgia, and went to the 
Voice of America ? 

Dr. CocuTz. Quite a few years ago, I had been very much irritated 
by our fight against communism. In fact, I expressed that in very 
many lectures throughout the South and also in my work at the Uni- 
versity of Georgia. And I wrote President Truman, I think in 
1950 or 1951. I wrote him a letter in which I suggested a more aggres- 
sive ideological fight against communism. And then later on, I ex- 
pressed the desire that I would like to come to work with the Voice of 
America, and that I am ready to bring whatever talents or gifts I have 
and join in the aggressive fight against communism. 

Mr. CoHN. Wlien did you assume your duties with the Voice of 
America, Dr. Cocutz ? 

Dr. Cocutz. June 17, 1952. 

Mr. CoHN. June 17, 1952? 

Dr. Cocutz. Yes. 

Mr. CoiiN. Now, after you assumed your duties at the Voice of 
America, did you find that a vigorous, aggressive anti- Communist 
policy was being pursued ? 

Dr. Cocutz. I was asked to survey and study the East European 
desks in general, to become familiar with what they were doing, and 
my immediate impression was a lack of real knowledge in many places 
about what communism really is and how we should fight it better. 

Mr. CoHN. In other words, you made a survey of the Eastern Euro- 
pean desks, and your conclusion after that survey, was that there was 
a lack of knowledge as to communism and how it should be fought. Is 
that correct ? 

Dr. Cocutz, Yes. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, did you go and see anybody in authority at the 
Voice of America about this ? 

Dr. Cocutz. I did more than that. I made a memorandum in which 
I explained a plan by which we should train our writers and our edi- 
tors in the Voice of America as to what communism is, what it stands 
for, what are the arguments about it, and how we can fight it more 
eflFectively. And I sent that memorandum to my superiors. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, after you sent that memorandum to your 
superiors, were you called to confer with any top official of the Voice 
of America ? 

Dr. Cocutz. Yes. I was called in by the policy adviser of the Voice 
of America, Mr. Kretzmann. 

Mr. CoHN. That is the chief policy adviser of the Voice of America, 
Mr. Ed Kretzmann ? 

Dr. Cocutz. Yes ; that is the chief policy adviser in New York. 

Mr. CoHN. The chief policy adviser for the Voice of America, 
which is located in New York; is that right? 

Dr. Cocutz. Yes. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, did you have a conversation with Mr. Kretzmann ? 

Dr. Cocutz. Yes. As soon as I got to his office, Mr. Kretzmann said 
to me, after he read the memorandum, that I was under the impres- 
sion that we are there at the Voice of America to fight communism. 



230 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

while we are not. I said to him, "Well, I am surprised, because I left 
my job at the University of Georgia purposely to come here and fight 
against communism. There is no business for me to be here, then. I 
can go back to the university, if I can't fight communism here." 

The Chairman. Did I understand you to say. Doctor, that he said 
you apparently were under the impression that you were there to fight 
communism, but actually that was not the function of the Voice? 

Dr. CocuTz. Yes. 

The Chairman. In other words, the function of the Voice was not 
to fight communism ? 

Dr. CocuTz. He explained that by mentioning two things. One 
thing he said was the fact that we cooperate with Tito while we fight 
against Stalin. 

I said, "If we cooperate in some areas with Tito, that doesn't prove 
we shouldn't fight communism." 

Then he added another remark, saying that he was informed by some 
peo])le that communism helped some poor people in some parts of the 
world, and he said, in fact we should change the word and not use 
the word "communism," but we should take another word, he thought 
the word "totalitarianism," and fight against totalitarianism. 

I said, "I lived in East Europe and I don't think the Communists 
ever helped poor people. What they did was to take the property both 
from the rich people and the poor people and give it to the state." 

At this time our conversation was interrupted. 

Senator Mundt. Did he ever give you any examples of anywhere in 
the world where communism has been helpful to poor people? 

Dr. CocuTz. No, at that time somebody came into the office, and the 
conversation was interrupted. 

The Chairman. Let the record show that Mr. Aiiberjonois is now 
in the room. 

I assume it was the bad weather that held you and your counsel up ? 

Mr. AuBERjoNois. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. Go right ahead. 

Dr. CocuTz. Well, that was all the reaction I got about that plan, 
in which I suggested that we should train our writers and editors to 
be better equipped to fight communism. 

Senator Mundt. Did you find in your survey that their writers and 
editors and policymakers up there did not seem to know the true 
nature of communism and the nature of the particular "ism" which 
was functioning over in Europe? 

Dr. CocuTz. I am sorry to say yes. I would not like to say it about 
everyone of them, but quite many of them didn't know what it was all 
about, what communism was. 

Senator Mundt. So your plan was to set up a sort of briefing con- 
ference ? 

Dr. CocuTZ. Yes, to bring them together and discuss what com- 
munism is and discuss which is the most effective way to fight it. 

Senator Mundt. In a propaganda sense ? 

Dr. CocuTZ. Yes. 

Senator McClellan. But you were told that was not the purpose 
of the Voice, to fiijht communism ? 

Dr. CocuTz. Yes. 

Senator Jackson. T\nio told you that? 

Dr. CocuTZ. Mr. Kretzmann. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 231 

Senator Jackson. Did he tell you that the purpose of the Voice 
was not to fight communism ? 
Dr. CocuTz. Yes. 

Senator Jackson. And what did he say was the purpose of the 
Voice, I mean, what were you up there for? 

Dr. CocuTz. Well, that was the length of the discussion we had, 
the way I gave it; although I have to add to that, that in another 
meeting, much later on, Mr. Kretzmann was asked if we were there to 
fight communism, and then he said "Yes." 

Senator Jackson. When was this? When was this later meeting? 

Dr. CocUTz. I don't recall exactly. This was a briefing session 
which different employees were briefed about the function of the 
Voice of America, and he came there to give a speech. He was asked : 
"Do you think that we should fight communism," and he said, "Yes." 

Senator Jackson. Who asked him that? 

Dr. CocTjTz. I don't recall exactly. I am inclined to think it was 
Paul Deac who asked him that. 

Senator Jackson. Let me ask you something to see if I can get one 
point clear. 

Did all of this conversation that you referred to earlier, about drop- 
ping the word "communism," have something to do with the possibility 
of something being said over the Voice that would conflict with our 
policies with Tito ? 

Dr. CocuTZ. No; I did not gather it from that. My own subjec- 
tive impression was that quite many of them didn't know what com- 
munism was all about. 

Senator Jackson. No, I understand, but Tito has a local Communist 
legime at the moment. 

Dr. CocuTz. Yes. 

Senator Jackson. I mean, was there any discussion about a conflict 
of policy between our present policy towards Tito and the Communist 
regimes under the Soviets? 

Dr. CocuTZ. I do not recall any discussion about that. 

Mr. CoHN. Dr. Cocutz, the purpose of your conversation with Mr. 
Kretzmann was that you had made a recommendation that there be 
a briefing of people on the European desk so that they could get an 
understanding of communism and what it was all about, which you 
noted, in your survey, they lacked. Is that correct? 

Dr. CocuTz. Yes, that is right. 

Mr. CoHN. And was such a briefing ever set up? 

Dr. CocuTz. No. 

Mr. CoHN. It has never been set up to this day ? 

Dr. CocuTz. No. 

The Chairman. May I interrupt? I was talking to the Senators, 
here, a minute, and I believe I missed some of your testimony. I under- 
stand your testimony is this : That when you went to Kretzmann, the 
Policy Director, and objected because you weren't effectively fighting 
communism, he told you that actually it was totalitarianism that the 
Voice should be fighting, and that the Communists were doing good 
for the people in some sections of the world, and, therefore, you should 
not aim your barbs at communism but you should aim them at totali- 
tarianism? 

Dr. CocuTz. Yes. 



232 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Senator Jackson. Right to that point : Did you not ask him, know- 
ing the kind of regime they have in Yugoslavia, "Well, if we use the 
word 'totalitarianism,' that will be aimed at Tito, too?" 

Dr. CocuTz. Well, as I said, exactly at the time when we were dis- 
cussing this matter, and when the question of helping the poor people 
came up, a group of people came in the office, and they were ready to 
listen to certain broadcasts, and our discussion was inten'upted there. 
I had many things to say. 

Senator Jackson, Well, did you ask him ? You see my point? 

Dr. CocuTz. Yes. 

Senator Jackson. I understand from what you said a moment ago 
that he, in one breath, was talking about our cooperation with Tito? 

Dr. CocTJTz, Yes. 

Senator Jackson. Well, if you change the designation to "totalitari- 
anism," would that not be striking right at Tito? Because he has a 
totalitarian regime. 

Dr. CocuTz. Yes. 

The Chairman. In other words, you did not feel that was a valid 
argument on his part ? 

May I ask you this : The Communist propaganda, of course, always is 
to the effect that they are helping the poor people. That is the general 
term that they use over and over. Would it appear that our Policy 
Director over there was taken in by that propaganda and started to 
believe it? 

Dr. CocuTZ. The only thing that I can say is exactly, as far as I can 
remember it are, his expressions saying we should not use the word 
"communism" but "totalitarianism," because he is told that in some 
places the Communists helped some poor people. And I would like 
to add that right then and there I had to say that I begged to disagree 
with him on that, because I lived in Europe and I don't think they help 
any poor people. 

Mr. CoHN. I think you have told us the fact that no briefing course 
was ever set up, and those people you referred to on the European desk 
still remain as ignorant of Communist tactics and propaganda as they 
were at the time you made your survey. Is that right? 

Dr. CocuTz. Yes. No other action was taken. No reference was 
taken after that, to set up these briefing sessions. 

Mr. CoHN. And I believe you have filed with the committee, have you 
not, the formula memorandum you submitted recommending a training 
program relating to communism ? Is that right ? 

Dr. CocuTZ. Here it is ; yes ; I gave you a copy. 

Mr. CoHN. We have a copy of that, dated Augiist 18, 1952. 

Dr. CocuTZ. Yes. 

Mr. CoHN. Mr. Chairman, may we have in the record this memo- 
randum submitted by Dr. Cocutz entitled "Training Program Relating 
to Communism" ? 

The Chairman. Do you want that marked as an exhibit, or repro- 
duced in the record? 

Mr. CoHN. I would suggest that it be marked as an exhibit, Mr. 
Chairman, if that is agreeable. 

The Chairman. Well, would that not be of sufficient importance to 
have it reproduced in the record ? 

Mr. Cohn. I think it might be. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 233 

The Chairman. The memorandum will be marked as an exhibit 
and placed in the record. 

(The material referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 17" and will be 
found in the appendix on p. 324) . 

Senator McClellan-. May I ask : Have your recommendations, any 
of your recommendations, been put into effect or carried out ? 

Dr. CocuTz. This recommendation was not put into effect. 

Senator McClellan. I am referring to this one that is now being 
made an exhibit, or placed in the record. 

Dr. CocuTZ. No ; it was not put into effect at all. 

Senator Jackson. What was the nature of the recommendation ? 

Without reading, what was the substance of your recommendation ? 

Dr. CocuTz. Well, the main idea of the recommendation was to 
bring the people in the Voice, the employees of the Voice, mostly the 
writers and the editors, who have to write daily and have to read 
daily the Communist propaganda, and have with them sessions in 
which they will get a better understanding of the Communist argu- 
ments. Communist beliefs. Communist tenets, and the way the Com- 
munists try to sell them to the people ; and then discuss together these 
arguments and discuss together which would be the best methods to 
counteract them and defeat them. 

Senator Jackson. Did they not have that briefing? 

Dr. CocuTz. As far as I know, no. 

Senator Jackson. How about the top people? Were they briefed 
in the local techniques in Rumania and elsewhere that the Com- 
munists were employing? 

Dr. CocuTZ. As far as I know, not. 

Senator Jackson. How could they prepare scripts and prepare pro- 
grams, then ? 

Dr. CocuTz. I am inclined to think that in that respect those em- 
ployees of the Voice of America who wanted to do a good job tried, 
themselves, to inform themselves as much as possible about the Com- 
munist propaganda to write scripts about that. At least that is 
what I was doing myself. 

The Chairman. May I ask you this question, Doctor. There seems 
to be a very serious question as to how the Voice should operate to be 
effective. No. 1, 1 assume you feel that a good Voice could be valuable 
to America ? 

Dr. CocuTz. Oh, definitely. 

The Chairman. Dr. Compton, the other day, made a suggestion, I 
notice, in one of the national magazines that the Voice programs be 
restricted to hard news and analysis; in other words, following pretty 
much the British Broadcasting Co.'s method of operation. What do 
you think about that? In other words, instead of trying to in effect 
put out counterpropaganda, or propaganda, that we merely have a 
system whereby we can give the people of the world the news about 
America, what we are doing, why we are doing it, to have them better 
acquainted with us? I gather that was his idea, when he said we 
should rstrict it to hard news and analysis. I think there is consider- 
able merit to that. 

Dr. CocuTz. Well, I am finding myself very much in disagree- 
ment with Dr. Compton on that point. To give just one example, 
all the young people in the Communist world are subjected now to very 
thorough indoctrination of communism from early childhood, and 



234 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

we have to counteract, especially among the young people, all the 
Communist arguments, not only the question of news and news 
analysis, but the whole propaganda machine of communism, which was 
to change the minds and hearts of the people. That propaganda must 
be met at every level and at every point by all the means possible in 
order to counteract their endeavor to conquer the minds and the hearts 
of men. 

Senator MgClellan. How can you do that without fighting com- 
munism ? 

Dr. CocuTz. Well, that is a very good question. I meant to say that 
we must be thoroughly determined to fight communism. 

Senator McClellan. In order to have a good Voice, you must have 
a staff and a Director who are willing to fight communism and say so. 

Dr. CocuTz. Yes. 

There is another point at which I disagree with Dr. Compton : on 
the question of going further than the news and news analysis. We 
have to present the American way of life to tTie world in greater 
detail, because the Communist propaganda is trying day and night to 
picture America as the ugliest country, as the ugliest nation, in the 
world, and we have to go into detail to tell the world what America 
stands for, how American people live, what are the main ideas that 
this country is built on, 

Mr. CoHN. Now, Dr. Cocutz, did you have occasion, in your survey 
and in criticism you wrote concerning various things along these lines 
at the Voice, to discuss with Mr. Kretzmann the religious progi^ams 
put out by the Voice of America ? 

The Chairman. By "religious programs," I assume you mean the 
Christmas programs or Easter programs. Or are we putting out other 
religious programs ? 

Mr. CoHN. Could we ask that of the witness, Mr. Chairman? I 
think that would be an important point to clarify. 

Dr. CocuTZ. Later on I wrote another memorandum, in which I 
criticized some phases of the Voice of America, and in those I brought 
up the question of religion as a weapon and as an argiunent against 
communism. Because the East European people, among whom I lived, 
are deeply religious, and communism tries to destroy religion com- 
pletely. And if we would become the champions of religious free- 
dom and inform them of the religious life of America and other 
nations of the world, and take their side in their fight to preserve 
their church life and their religion, whatever religion they have, we 
would do a very effective work against communism. 

Senator McClellan, Do we not have any programs now in the 
Voice of America designed and calculated to do that? 

Dr. CocuTZ. Well, each desk now does something, and it varies from 
desk to desk, from language to language, what they do about religious 
programs. And according to my survey, I did not think what they 
were doing at that time was adequate. I talked with Mr. Kretzmann 
' about it, and he informed me that there is a religious desk in the 
Voice of America, which is supposed to help the different language 
services with religious materials and religious scripts. "But," he said 
to me, "I already told some other religious leaders around here that 
the chief of that desk does not believe in God." 

Senator McClellan. Wlio is the chief of the desk? 

Dr. CocuTz, The chief of the desk, I think, is Mr. Roger Lyons. 



STATE dp:partment information program 235 

The Chairman. You mean the Policy Director put an atheist or 
agnostic in charge? 

Dr. CocuTZ. I don't know who put him there, and I know I met 
him quite a few times, and I don't know him at all and don't want 
to make any statement myself about him. I am just telling you that 
I told Mr. Kretznuinn and told other people that I thought we should 
bring the best religious leaders of this country, the best brains, to use 
them with the State Department in our fight for religious freedom 
and against atheistic communism. 

The Chairman. Of course, every man has a perfect right to be an 
atheist or agnostic or whatever he wants to be, but it seems rather 
unusual to have an atheist in charge of the religious desk of the Voice. 
Would that not seem rather unusual ? 

Dr. CocuTz. I would like to add once more that I met Mr. Lyons 
a few times and talked with him. I don't know what his beliefs are at 
all. I am just quoting what JNIr. Kretzmann told me. 

Senator Jackson. Mr. Kretzmann told you he was an atheist ? 

Dr. CocuTz. No; Mr. Kretzmann told me that he told somebody 
else also that Mr. Lyons is an atheist. 

Senator Jackson. This is important, and I am anxious to get the 
truth here. Will you restate again on what you base your hearsay 
information ? It is hearsay. You got it from somebody else. Where 
did you pick it up ? 

Dr. CoGUTz. I talked to Mr. Kretzmann. 

Senator Jackson. What did Mr. Kretzmann tell you ? 

Dr. Co'cuTZ. AVe were talking about religious programs in the Voice 
of America, and 1 was saying we should be more aggressive in help- 
ing the people behind the Iron Curtain that are subject to Communist 
or atheist propaganda. And he said, "Well, some religious official 
came around here, and he asked me about it, and I told him that the 
chief of the religious desk is an atheist." 

Senator Jackson. Mr. Kretzmann told you? 

Dr. CocuTZ. That he told somebody else. But he told me also. He 
repeated what he told somebody else. 

Senator Jackson. That the Chief of the religious desk was an 
atheist? 

Dr. CoctTTz. Yes, 

Senator Jackson. Did you ask him why he permitted this — Is it 
Mr. Lyons that you are referring to ? 

Dr. CocuTz. No; I did not. You see, I am new in the Voice of 
America. I did not pursue very much my questions. I expressed my 
opinions and my views, and I listened to the reaction, as far as I re- 
member the conversation. 

Senator Jackson. Did you talk with anybody else on it? 

Dr. CocuTz. No. 

The Chairman. That was not your job. 

Dr. CocuTz. No. f 

Senator Mundt. Subsequently, did you go and have a conference 
with the Chief of the religious desk to present your ideas to him, so 
you would have a chance to judge his reactions to your suggestions? 

Dr. CocuTz. I talked to him a few times, but I did not bring up the 
whole question to talk with him about it. What I did was, in my 
language service, to build religious programs, as many as I could, 
myself. 



236 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

The Chairman. I am not quite clear there. Just pardon me for 
1 minute. I am not quite clear on this, Doctor. Did you say that 
Kretzmann told you that the head of this religious desk was an atheist, 
or did he tell you that someone had told him ? 

Dr. CocuTz. No ; he told me. He quoted himself. 

The Chairman. And then you say he also told someone else the 
same thing. Is that right ? 

Dr. CocuTz. Yes. 

The Chairman. Then may I say to Senator Jackson : 

That, of course, would not be hearsay. That would be direct 
evidence. 

Senator Jackson. He is stating his opinion. I think it is important 
in a case like that that we have Mr. Kretzmann and Mr. Lyons down 
here right away to confront them with this. 

Senator McClellan. I do not quite understand. Did Kretzmann 
tell you that Kretzmann himself had told someone else that Lyons 
was an atheist? 

Dr. CocuTZ. Yes. 

Senator McClellan. Or that Lyons had told someone? 

Dr. CocuTz. No. 

Senator McClellan. He told you that he, Kretzmann, had told 
someone else that Lyons was an atheist ? 

Dr. CocuTZ. That is right. 

Mr. CoHN. As I understand it, Dr. Cocutz, you discussed these 
religious programs with Mr. Kretzmann, and Mr. Kretzmann told 
you, as though this was nothing new to him, that a group of some 
religious leaders had been in to see him and had discussed the situa- 
tion, and he had told them that the head of the desk was an atheist, 
and he was telling you the same thing. Is that the picture? 

Dr. CocuTZ. Yes ; that is it. 

Mr. CoHN. And I assume it was not your function, as long as the 
information apparently was known to the chief policy adviser of the 
Voice of America, to go around and try to do something about it. Is 
that right? 

Dr. CocuTZ. Well, I had sent a memorandum. This was another 
memorandum, in which I presented my views as to what the Voice 
of America should do in the religious field. And I left it at that. 

Now, I would like very much to add this important thing: I 
met Mr. Lyons a few times. I never discussed in detail the questions 
of religion. He impressed me as a very fine fellow, was very friendly 
to me, and I do not want to make any statement about him, because I 
don't know him. 

Senator McClellan. How long have you been with the Voice of 
America ? 

Dr. CocuTz. Since June 17, 1952. 

Senator McClellan. Are you still with it? 

Dr. CocuTz. Yes. 

'Senator McClellan. Have you found any better cooperation re- 
cently than you did when you first went with the Voice ?^ Have you 
observed recently an apparent desire on the part of responsible authori- 
ties on the part of the Voice to clean up this situation and to get it on 
the right track ? 

Dr. CocTJTZ. The thing that impressed me most, recently, was what 
the Government of the United States did to furnish us with better 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 237 

arguments against communism, for example, the speech of Mr. Lodge 
at the United Nations and the statements of Mr. Dulles regarding the 
liberation of the enslaved people. 

Senator McClellan. Was there any difference of opinion about 
whether you should use the speeches of Mr. Lodge and Mr. Dulles in 
your broadcasts ? 
Dr. CocuTz. No. 

Senator Mundt. In other words, what you are trying to say is that 
the program of the Voice can never be any better than the State 
Department's foreign policy? 

Dr. CocuTz. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. And it is not quite fair to criticize the Voice for its 
failure to project something, when there is a paucity of news, a paucity 
of action and policy, to fight communism ? 

Dr. CocuTz. That is true. 

The Chairman. You referred to Mr. Dulles' statement. We have 
been hearing many statements to the effect that the exposure of what 
has been going on in the Voice has hurt the morale of the Voice. I 
have taken the position, from the information I get, that the morale 
of the good Americans in the Voice in the State Department is at an 
alltime high ; that the morale of those who feel soft toward communism 
and have been acting soft toward it may be rather low, and should be. 

Mr. Dulles made a statement several days ago, in which he said, in 
effect, that he wanted to cooperate with this committee; that he felt 
that an investigating committee had a function in exposing wrong- 
doing. What was ^\e reaction to that statement of Mr. Dulles over 
among the Voice officials? 

Dr. CocuTz. We discussed the statement in the policy meeting 
Friday, last Friday, and we discussed exactly this point. And there 
were various statements made, and I don't recall them now. I remem- 
ber that I added to the discussion only this much: that we should 
have very high morale just because the Government of the United 
States furnished us in these two statements that I mentioned before 
great weapons with which to fight communism. One is the state- 
ment by Mr. Lodge at the United Nations, and the other one was the 
statement by Mr. Dulles regarding the liberation of the enslaved 
people. And I added then that those weapons should make us all 
very happy about it. 

The Chairman. Wliat did the Policy Director have to say about 
this expression on the part of Dulles, that is, that he would cooperate 
with the committee and did not object to having the Voice under 
the bright light, and that he would not defend any mistakes that 
were exposed? What, if anything, did the Policy Director have to 
say about that ? 

Dr. CocuTz. I don't remember any precise statement about that. 
I mean to say, we discussed the whole thing in the meeting, but I 
don't remember any precise statement about that. 

Senator Jackson. How do yon spell Mr. Lyons' name? 

Dr. CocuTz. I am not sure. I think it is L-y-o-n-s. 

Senator Jackson. What is his first name? 

Dr. CocuTz. Roger. 

Senator Jackson. And he is head of the 

Dr. CocuTz. Eeligious desk. 



238 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Senator Jackson. The religious desk. Is that for the entire Voice? 

Dr. CocuTz. I am inclined to think so. 

Senator Dirksen. Mr. Chairman, I have a question or two. 

Dr. Cocutz, who actually made policy up there, the Policy Director, 
or was it a group ? 

Dr. CocuTZ. Mr. Ed Kretzmann, the policy adviser, brought us to- 
gether and told us what the policy was and gave us a chance to tell 
our views, to discuss them, and to discuss the policy, and after that 
w^e had to take it or leave it. 

Senator Dirksen. Well, then what happened? Was a memoran- 
dum or a directive issued indicating what the policy would be? Or 
was this all verbal understanding ? 

Dr. Cocutz. No, there were daily policy directives issued every 
morning to us at the 9 : 30 meeting. 

Senator Dirksen. Those were sent to all the various desks where 
the scripts are prepared ? 

Dr. Cocutz. They were given out at the meeting, and presumably 
the Chiefs of the language services were supposed to take them to 
their language services and inform the writer's about the policy. 

Senator Dirksen. Now, wdiat were yojiir precise duties up there be- 
sides attending policy meetings and preparing memorandums ? 

Dr. Cocutz. I am the Acting Chief of the Rumanian Service, and 
my job is, together with a grou]) of editors and writers, to prepare 
daily broadcasts which are beamed to Rumania. 

Senator Dirksen. So you were engaged in the preparation of 
scripts ? 

Dr. Cocutz. Yes. 

Senator Dirksen. Now, then, under normal circumstances, you 
would prepare a script revealing your own views. But in the light 
of these policy meetings, did you have to inject some bias into your 
views? Did you have to modify them, before they were suitable to 
go on the air ? 

Dr. Cocutz. Well, yes; these policies put some limitations on what 
we could say and what we could not say. Naturally, I would never say 
something that I do not believe. If something was prohibited by the 
policy directive, I would just leave it out. And that was all I could say. 

I could give an instance about that, if you want me to. 

Senator Dirksen. Well, now, let us assume that a script was pre- 
pared that was in line with your convictions but Avas not in line with 
policy. Then what happened ? 

Dr. Cocutz. It v»'as turned down. 

Senator Dirksen. Turned down completely ? Or are the objection- 
able portions edited out of the script ? 

Dr. Cocutz. Well, I can give you an example. One of my scripts 
w^as turned down. I wrote a script, and I have a copy here of it, 
entitled "Five Evils of Marxism." And I started with the statement 
of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Joseph Martin, in 
Avhich he said that Marxism was a "political malady." And I began 
to give five reasons why I agree ; why Mr. Martin was right. 

Senator Dirksen. All right. And that script was prepared by you ? 

Dr. Cocutz. It was ])repared by me personally, and I gave it to Mr. 
Kretzmann, and Mr. Kretzmann turned it down, although I showed 
it to some other Division chiefs and they accepted it and broadcast it. 

Senator Dirksen. It was used ? 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 239 

Dr. CocuTz. It was used by them, but I don't know if they asked 
Mr. Kretzmann about it. But the fact is this, that Mr. Kretzmann 
told me that I "cannot use it in tlie form in which it is." 

Senator Jackson. Well, what reason did he give? 

Dr. CocuTz. I have the scrij^t here, but I think that INIr. Cohn has 
notations on the copy that he has there, about the objections to the 
script. And I think I can give you one, what I think very important, 
item in the script. 

One of the evils, I said, of Marxism and Stalinism was the fact 
that they demanded abolishing the private property, the way the Com- 
nninist manifesto said. And on the margin of the script which you 
have there, it is written that that is questionable. Then there is an 
argument which follows there, which has nothing to do with my 
argument in the script. 

Senator Dirksex. Well, I think Mr. Cohn wants to pursue that. I 
just wanted to get the answer to one question. Who up there actually 
knew what was going on? Who knew what to do? Who knew what 
line to follow? Mr. Kretzmann had one idea; the policy group had 
one idea; the individuals at the desks preparing scripts had other 
ideas. Where was the common meeting point ? 

Dr. CocuTz. Well, this is the w^ay it seemed to me to proceed. The 
Chiefs of the Language Services were called to daily meetings with 
Mr. Kretzmann. Mr. Kretzmann was supposed, as far as I know, to 
get the policy from Washington. And what he told us was to be the 
final word. We discussed, we argued. At some points he said he 
would consult with Washington about your points of view, but he w^as 
the one that decided about the policy. 

Senator Dirksen. But it w^ould be a lot of madness, unless there 
were some directives that made it reasonably plain just wdiat line you 
were to pursue, what the jum])ingoiT place was. Were there such 
directives ? 

Dr. CocuTz. Well, the directives that we got every day. 

Senator Dirksen. Verbal, or written? 

Dr. CocuTz. Written. 

Senator Dirksen. Are those directives available? 

Dr. CocuTz. I think so. I don't have them, but I think that the 
Voice of America has the daily directives. 

Senator Dirksen. I have been trying to find out who knows what 
about what in the Voice of America. It is not plain to me yet that 
it was anything but a sort of a mad scramble, with everybody going 
in all directions. I do not see how a man at a desk can prepare a 
script addressed to Rumania or Czechoslovakia unless he had some 
idea of what the policy was going to be for that particular area. 
Aiid if the policy was in conflict with his own convictions, then the 
situation was complicated even more. 

Dr. CocuTz. But these directives were general, and they w^re sup- 
posed to be followed by all the desks. 

Senator Dirksen. And how much editing was there done on these 
scripts? When you submitted a script, for instance, on that portion 
behind the Iron Curtain that is of particular import to you, namely, 
Rumania, all scripts had to be submitted, I suppose ? 

Dr. CocuTz. No. 

Senator Dirksen. They did not have to be submitted? 

29708— 53— pt. 4 2 



240 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Dr. CocuTz. No. We used two kinds of scripts. One kind of 
scripts were furnished by the Central Services. Those supposedly 
were already approved by the policy advisers. In this case we could 
translate them, edit them, and use them, at our convenience, and at 
our decision, but within the limits of the material that was given 
there. 

Senator Dirksen. What was the general nature of those? 

Dr. CocuTz. Well, they were various. 

Senator Dirksen. News commentaries? 

Dr. CocuTz. Mostly news commentaries. But they dealt with many 
other topics, like labor 

Senator Dirksen. All right. That is one kind. What was the 
other kind ? 

Dr. CocuTz. Well, they had agricultural scripts, and in general, 
most of them dealt with the interpretation of world events. 

Then each language service had some original commentaries, which 
were written in the respective language. Those in general were 
not read by the policy adviser, but the chiefs of the services were 
supposed to see that the content of those scripts that originated in 
the Language Services would be within the limits of the policy which 
was given to them. 

Senator Dirksen. What was the policy with respect to news com- 
mentaries from day to day? Information that was taken from the 
daily papers? 

Dr. CocuTz. Well, the policy in general varied from day to day. 
It would be very hard to make a general statement about what was 
the general policy about it. What happened was that the Central 
Services sent to us commentaries and sent us through the ticker the 
news of the day which they collected from different press services, and 
we were supposed to use them. They were supposed to be already 
approved. 

Senator Dirksen. Well, who got those together ? 

Dr. CocuTz. The news was gathered together by the news service. 
There is a special News Service for each area. For example, for 
Eastern Europe there is a news desk, and the news desk collects all 
the news from wire services and other sources and sends that to the 
services on the ticker. 

Senator Dirksen. Well, I am thinking particularly of news in the 
United States of America that was a part of the daily commentary, 
just little squibs, one paragraph lonir, that supposedly would be the 
hijihlight of the news for the day. Who gets those together? 

Dr. CocuTZ. The news services. 

Senator Dirksen. Well, Mr. Chairman, I am very much interested, 
because my first experience was with the Lincoln program last year, 
when I discovered that the Lincoln broadcast on Lincoln Anniversary 
Week consisted mainly of a letter which Karl Marx had written to 
Abraham Lincoln, and that was supposedly an endeavor, I think, to 
make it look as though Mr. Lincoln was rather sympathetic to the idea. 
And I put some of it in the Congressional Record last year. 

But I have in mind, Mr. Chairman, a script of daily commentary 
that I saw that goes back quite a ways. About the only thing I could 
see in it was that thugs had held up somebody in New York with a new 
kind of attack; that airplanes had crashed. I could see nothing 
in the whole commentary that put America in a favorable light. And 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 241 

I am wondering who goes through the papers and picks out these 
items to be broadcast to all the world as to what is happening in the 
United States. 

Dr. CocuTZ. Well; there are two groups there. One is a group 
which selects the news, that we are supposed to use, from all the sources 
possible, and they decide what we should use and what we should not 
use. The other one is the Central Services, which prepares the scripts 
sent to us, the commentaries. 

The Chairman. Did you attend the policy meeting last Friday at 
12 o'clock? 

Dr. CocuTz. Yes. 

The Chairman. Will you tell us what happened then ? 

Dr. CocuTz. Well ; I was slightly late at the meeting, and when I 
entered into the meeting, the discussion was going on about Mr. Dulles' 
statement in connection with the Senate investigations. And Mr. 
Kretzmann had it and read it, and he made a statement to the effect, 
I gathered, that the statement of Mr. Dulles was rather depressing, 
and that he thinks that we should not use it for broadcast. And then 
there was a reaction in the room. If I recollect it right, I think it 
was Mr. Barmine, the head of the Kussian branch, who reacted saying 
we should use it, and that he thinks we should ask Washington to let 
us use it, because the European newspapers and other publications 
already are discussing the Senate investigation that is carried on about 
the Voice of America. And then I think that Mr. Albert, the Chief 
of the German desk, also expressed the idea that he should be allowed 
to use it, because in Germany there are already discussions about the 
Senate investigation. And then Mr. Kretzmann said he was going to 
call Washington about it. And I think while yve were there, Mr. Kretz- 
mann tried to get in touch, I gathered, with Mr. McCardle to see what 
we should do about it. 

The Chairman. But Kretzmann came in with the statement and 
said that it was depressing and he thought that it should not be used ? 

Dr. CocuTZ. Yes. 

The Chairman. I notice this script prepared by you, with the nota- 
tion that it was initialed by Mr. Kretzmann. Is that correct ? 

Dr. CocTJTz. I don't know who initialed it. I wanted to check, but 
I don't know who initialed it. 

The Chairman. And there is a comment that this is not acceptable, 
and one of the reasons why it is not acceptable is because it ascribes 
ethical values to capitalism and denies ethical values to Marxism, and 
points out tliis should not be done, because people like Attlee and 
Leon Blum and Norman Thomas and others would not agree with 
that. 

Dr. CocuTZ. Well, I want to say at this point that I argued with 
them about that point, in this sense ; that, in effect, we cannot ascribe 
any ethical values to Marxism, because Marxism itself, being mate- 
rialism, denies all the ethical values in which we believe. 

The Chairman. I am going to ask you to examine this and see if 
I have correctly noted the comments ; in other words, that one of the 
objections to this script is because it ascribes ethical values to capital- 
ism and fails to ascribe ethical values to Marxism. 

Dr. CocuTZ. Yes; that is true. 

The Chairman. And that is one of the reasons why this script was 
unacceptable ? 



242 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Dr. CocuTz. That is correct. 

The Chairman. You do not know whose initial that is on the 
bottom ? 

Dr. CocuTz. No. 

The Chairman. Do you know who you got it f roni ^ In other 
words, I would like to know who made that comment, who turned it 
down because it failed to ascribe ethical values to Marxism. 

Dr. CocuTZ. I oot the script back from Mr. Kretzmann's office, but 
I do not know exactly wdio initialed this. 

Senator Mundt. Doctor, I think it inifjht be helpful to the commit- 
tee if you could re-create for us as completely as you can one of those 
typical directives. You said every morning at 9 : 30 you got a 
directive. 

Dr. CocuTz. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. What would be the nature of those directives? 
Can you give us 1 or 2 illustrative directives, as best you can remember 
them ? 

Dr. CocuTz. Yes. In fact, there were 2 sheets of paper, and once 
in a while 3 sheets of paper, and they were something like this. One 
of the directives, which talked in general, said, ''The questions 
of East Europe should be treated this way. The questions of the Far 
East should be treated this way. The questions of Latin America 
should be treated this way." And so on and on. Then the other direc- 
tive took the areas and said, "This is the most important news from 
this area today," and, "this article or this editorial from this paper 
is the most suitable for us to use today," or "We should not use that 
commentary or that article from that ])ress service," or something like 
that. And then the third sheet would give us a list of the commen- 
taries which will be issued that day in general. 

Senator Mundt. That would happen every morning at 9:30? 

Dr. CocuTZ. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. Now, let us take a typical week. Out of, say, six, 
such meetings, would you find yourself generally in agreement witli 
those directives, or generally in disagreement with them? 

Dr. CocuTZ. Well, when there was a question of news, I found my- 
self most of the time in general agreement with them, because they 
gave us the news, and we had quite a choice to take from the news what 
fits better our programs. When there was a question of commentaries, 
I found myself very many times in disagreement with the com- 
mentaries that we received, mostly because quite many of them were 
of poor quality. Because of that we wrote most of the time our com- 
mentaries in our language services. 

Senator IMundt. When you wrote a commentary, you did not have 
to submit it back to Mr. Kretzmann? 

Dr. CocuTz. No. But I would have to follow his policy that was 
given to us. 

Senator Mundt. You have been there now^ for almost a year ? 

Dr. Cocutz. Well, since June 17. 

Senator Mundt. And you have attended a conference practically 
every day? 

Dr. CocuTz. Yes; just about. 

Senator Mundt. How many times would you say, in the course of 
those commentaries all together, you have had occasion to violently 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 243 

disagree with a directive or a statement of policy or an attitude on the 
part of your top officials? 

Dr. CocuTz. Well, I found myself quite a few times in disagree- 
ment, but I would have to recollect the specific dates to tell you spe- 
cifically about it. I would just have to say once more that most dis- 
agreements were with the poor quality of the commentaries that we 
received, because they were not strong enough against communism. 

Senator Mundt. You did not find yourself disagreeing with the 
general effort or the slant of the policy people, but it was a disagree- 
ment dealing with the quality of the script; is that right? 

Dr. CocuTz. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. It was a rare occasion, then, as I understand it, 
when you would find yourself disagreeing as you did on this Joe 
Martin broadcast and the other one because of the feeling that they 
were not hitting communism ? 

Dr. CocuTZ. Well, I will have to qualify that in this respect, that I 
— now, that is a subjective feeling — that most of our scripts and 
commentaries were not strong enough in the value and the power of 
tlieir arguments and proofs and attacks on communism, as I wanted 
tliem to be. 

Senator Symington. But, in general, they were what you would 
call soft toward communism, or indicative of failure to understand 
communism ? 

Dr. CocuTz. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. Do you know where Kretzmann made his contact 
in Washington? You said when there was a disagreement in the pol- 
icy meeting, he would say : "I will have to call Washington." Whom 
did he call ? Did he cali Con»|oton, or Secretary Acheson ? 

Dr. CocuTZ. I am not familiar with the Washington office of our 
information program. I have not been enough connected with the 
Voice to know exactly. 

Senator Mundt. An( 
whom he was responsible ? 

Dr. CocuTz. I was inclined to think that usually he called the of- 
fices of the international information program. 

Senator Mundt. Who would be in charge of that? 

Dr. CocuTz. I am sorry. I don't know the details of the inner or- 
ganization of the offices. 

The Chairman. Bradley Connors would be top policy director. 

Dr. CocuTz. The name of Mr. Connors was mentioned many times. 

Senator Mundt. He would saj, "Mr. Connors suggests this," or 
"Mr. Connors mentions this" ? 

Dr. Cocutz. Well, his usual way of expressing was, "This is the 
policy that came from Washington, from our offices in Washington." 

Senator Mundt. And did you gather that that was Bradley Con- 
nors' office, when he talked about the office in Washington ? 

Dr. CocuTz. I would not like to state anything about that, because I 
don't know the details exactly. 

Senator Mundt. How did he mention Bradley Connors? You 
said he mentioned him many times. 

Dr. CocuTz. I would not say many times. 

Senator Mundt. I thought you said he mentioned him many times. 

Dr. CocuTz. I am sorry. I said he mentioned Connors in connection 
with talking to Washington, but I wouldn't say he mentioned him 



244 STATE DEPARTMENT ESTFORMATION PROGRAM 

many times. In general, his statement was that the directive came 
from Washington. 

The Chairman. Doctor, this script interests me very much, espe- 
cially the comments in the margin, initialed by someone. This paper, 
prepared by you, is entitled "Five Evils of Marxism." I notice the 
second paragraph says: 

The Marxist movement defends at least five doctrines vphich make it worse 
than a malady — they make it a poison. Here are these five Marxist beliefs : 

I note the word "poison" is circled and underlined. What does that 
mean ? 

Dr. CocuTz. It was an objection. 

The Chairman. In other words, someone in Kretzmann's office, or 
Kretzmann, objected to using the word "poison" in describing 
Marxism ? 

Dr. CocuTz. Yes. 

The Chairman. I notice down toward the middle of the script, 
where you refer to Communist-dominated countries, the word "Com- 
munist" is underlined with a check in the margin. 

Does that indicate that they object to your use of the term "Commu- 
nist-dominated countries"? 

Dr. CocuTZ. There was an objection there, but I don't remember 
exactly what was the objection. 

The Chahunian. You do not follow me. Would you step up here ? 

Dr. CocuTZ. I have it. It is on the first page. 

The Chairman. Do you have the markings there ? 

Dr. CocuTZ. No; but I think the marking is under "Communist- 
dominated countries." 

The Chairman. Does the check mark there indicate there is some- 
thing objectionable in that particular line? 

Dr. CocuTz. Yes, but I don't recall what was the objection. 

The Chairman. The next line which was checked as objectionable 
was : 

The results of class distinctions and of class struggle are seen in the punish- 
ment of millions of innocent people — 

and here is the line checked. 

whose only "crime" is that they fit a certain artificial definition. 

Do you know why they objected to your use of that? 

Dr. CocTJTz. I don't know. 

The Chairman. Here is one that interests me very much. I note 
on page 3, if you will drop down to paragraph 2, there is underlined 
a portion of this paragraph : 

In the fourth place — Marxism is more than a malady because it demands the 
destruction of private property. Marx wrote in the Communist Manifesto that 
communism can be summarizetl in one sentence : destruction of private property. 
That is Stalin's main program. 

Then, in the margin, written and initialed : 

Questionable. Stalin is not a doctrinaire Marxist. Marxism is the ideological 
fig leaf of respectability. 

Mr. Counsel, can you make this out? 
Mr. CoHN (reading) : 

* * * is the ideological fig leaf of respectability. This hides Stalin's drive for 
world domination. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 245 

The Chairman. In other words, someone there says that Marxism 
is the fig leaf of respectability under which Stalin is hiding. Do you 
know what they mean by that? 

Dr. CocuTz. I don't know. I would like to say that I was more 
furious about this objection than about anything, because in effect, 
here, I was attacking the basic Communist program which is carried 
on in Rumania and everywhere, by which they take the land and the 
houses and the cows and the pigs and everything from the individuals 
and give them to the state. And I was expressing that fact in this 
argument and attacking it. 

And they said "Questionable," and then their argument why it is 
questionable has nothing to do with my argument there at all. It 
just talks that Stalin hides himself under the respectability of 
Marxism. 

The Chairman. Do you know of anything respectable about Marx- 
ism ? 

Dr. CocuTz, No. If you read the script, you will know that I don't. 

The Chair]Man. I know. I think you made that very clear. 

We have had a number of witnesses tell us so far that a number of 
those in policy positions in the Voice have taken the position that 
Stalin should be fought as an individual and that one of the objection- 
able things about Stalin is that he does not follow the teachings of 
Marx. In other words, if he had, he would not be such a bad fellow. 
Your statement here, that you were told that we were fighting totali- 
tarianism, not communism, would seem to bear that out. And this 
statement that "Stalin is hiding under the fig leaf of respectability of 
Marxism" would seem to indicate that whoever made this note felt 
that Marxism was respectable. 

Mr. CocuTZ. Yes ; and at the end, that Marxism has ethical values. 

I felt the same way about the statement, that there was a tendency 
in the Voice of America to treat respectfully Marxism, and to attack 
Stalin himself. I found myself disagreeing with them violently, be- 
cause it was Marx, or Marxism, which prepared the doctrine of the 
dictatorship of the proletariat. It was Marxism which proposed the 
doctrine of the destruction of private property, and it was Marxism 
which proposed the division of classes and the destruction of the 
bourgeois class, and through the Communist Party, the dictatorship 
of the proletariat. And it was Marx who proposed the fight against 
religion, and the destruction of religion everywhere in the world. 
I have studied Marx back and forth since I was a child and found 
myself absolutely against him. I do not see how anybody can be a 
democrat and believe in the rights of all human beings, and be a 
Marxist. 

Senator McClellan. Or a Republican ? 

Dr. CocuTz. I am sorry. I meant it in the other sense. 

Senator Symington. How long have you been in this country? 

Dr. CocuTz. I came here in 1939. 

Senator Symington. ^^Hiere did you come from ? 

Dr. CocuTz. I came from Rumania. 

Senator Symington. Wliy did you leave Rumania? 

Dr. CocuTz. At that time, I was the executive secretary of the 
Baptist Union of Rumania. And I was the editor of the Protestant 
official paper of Rumania, mostly Baptist. And I came as a delegate 
to the Baptist World Congress in Atlanta, Ga. I came for 3 months, 



246 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

with the idea to turn back that fall to go back to Kumania. I had a 
return ticket, and I still have it. 

Senator Symington. Why did you decide to stay here? 

Dr. CocuTz. Well, in the first place, I was informed that 1 was on 
the blacklist of the Iron Guard in Rumania, and that meant that I 
would be killed as soon as the Iron Guard would get the power in 
Rumania. 

The Chairman. The what? 

Dr. CocuTz. The Iron Guard, which was a Nazi movement in 
Rumania. 

At the same time, I decided to enjoy a little bit of the freedom of 
America, because I had been thrown in jail in Rumania about two 
times by King Carol. And at the same time, the war caught me here, 
and I remained, and then I decided to become an American citizen 
and become a professor here, in our institutions. 

Senator Symington. How did you get to the Voice of America? 

Dr. CocuTZ. The first step toward the Voice of America was my 
letter that I sent to Mr. Truman, expressing a new plan to fight com- 
munism at the ideological and psychological level. I did not get any 
answer from Mr. Truman and Mr. Acheson. I sent copies to both of 
them. But I sent copies to Senator Russell, of Georgia, and Senator 
George, because I lived in Georgia, and it was Senator Russell who 
read my plan very carefully. And Senator Russell sent a letter to the 
State Department, asking them to study my plan, because he is inter- 
ested very much in it. I have a copy of the letter that he sent to the 
State Department. Mr. Puhan wrote me a letter and invited me to 
come to New York and offered me then a job to work with the Voice of 
America. I told him that I was not ready yet to come with them, but 
then later on he invited me once more, and I accepted, to work for the 
Voice of America. 

Senator Symington. To whom do you report in the Voice of 
America? 

Dr. CocuTz. My immediate Chief is Mr. Armitage, who is the Chief 
of the East European Branch of the Voice of America. 

Senator Symington. Now, you prepared this script that Senator 
McCarthy was talking about, and some notations were made or excep- 
tions made? 

Dr. CocuTz. Yes. 

Senator Symington. Did you ask why they were made, or did you 
just accept the changed script? 

Dr. CocuTz. No ; I talked with them. I talked, but only in passing. 
I talked with them. I talked with Mr. Kretzmann, and he told me a 
few of the objections that he had to the script verbally, outside of the 
notations. 

Senator Symington. "Wlio broadcast the script? 

Dr. CocuTz. This is the way it happened. In the meeting, I gave 
this script to Mr. Kretzmann, and the other chiefs of the language 
services heard about it, and they said, "Give us copies. We want to 
look it over." So Mr. Lielnors, of the North European Branch, got a 
copy ; he said the script was wonderful, and he used it. And then Mr. 
Dooher, Chief of the Near East Branch, took it, and he used it, as 
far as he told me. And then Mr. Baldanza of the Latin American 
Division said he used it, and he called up saying he would like me 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 247 

to write some more scripts about it. And I said, "Mr. Baldanza, I 
can't. I was told this one wasn't good." 

Senator Symington. Who told yon. that? 

Dr. CocuTz. Mr. Kretzmann. 

Senator Symington. And the reasons he gave were the reasons 
given in the script; is that right? 

Dr. CocuTz. The notations are on the script. I remember only one 
verbal objection outside of those. I was talking of the Marxist doc- 
trine of violent revolution, and Mr. Kretzmann said that sometimes 
Marx accepted some kinds of revolution which would not be violent. 

Senator Symington. So that we may understand the question of 
responsibility and authority, you say you rei)orted to Mr. Armitage, 
but Mr. Kretzmann was the one who disapproved the script. 

Dr. CocLTTz. Yes. 

Senator Symingit)n. What is the organization ? 

Dr. CocuTz. Well, the organization is this: Mr. Armitage, and 
above him Mr. Herrick, and above him Mr. Puhan, have to do with 
program and with the staff and administrative things. Our policy, 
advice, comes directly from the office of Mr. Kretzmann. 

Senator Symington. And Mr. Kretzmann's title? 

Dr. CocuTz. He is the policy adviser of the IBS, of the Voice of 
America offices in New York. 

Senator Symington. And he would have the right to turn down 
anything which he did not think was proper in the script ; is that it ? 

Dr. CocuTz. Yes. 

Senator Symington. And in this case he turned down things which 
you felt were wrong from the standpoint of projecting our way of life? 

Dr. CocuTz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Symington. Have you questioned in your own mind Mr. 
Kretzmann's ideologies? 

Dr. CocuTz. Yes. 

Senator Symington. You have? 

Dr. CocuTz. Yes. 

Senator Symington. Do you think that he is a Communist? 

Dr. CocuTz. No. I have to make a broader statement about that. I 
would like to say this, that I talked with Mr. Kretzmann very many 
times. He was extremely friendly to me. He was ready to help me 
anytime I wanted, and we had personal relations that were very 
friendly. Though we disagi'eed on many policies, we were very 
friendly. 

Senator Symington. I am not talking about the personal relation- 
ship. 

Dr. CocuTz. Yes. But my impression was that Mr. Kretzmann, 
when there is a question of what communism really is, was confused. 

Senator Symington. Was what? 

Dr. CbcuTz. Was confused. Was not informed enough. 

Senator Symington. He was not informed enough. You think he 
followed the Communist line ? Or do you think he was just confused ? 

Dr. CocuTz. I think I would not say that if he followed the Com- 
munist line or not. I would like to say that my impression was that 
he was not informed enough. 

Senator Symington. Not informed. Well, do you not agree that 
inasmuch as you are testifying against Mr. Kretzmann in a sense, that 
as soon as possible, to protect his name, he ought to come before this 



248 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

committee and testify himself as to why he was confused, or his 
opinion as to why he does not think he was conf nsed ? 

Dr. CocuTZ. Oh, yes. I think that he shoukl have the same privi- 
lege that I have or anybody else has to answer any questions that are 
brought up about him. 

Senator Symington. Now, one other question. You discussed as to 
whether or not Mr. Lyons, who was in charge of religion, was an 
atheist or not. Is that right ? 

Dr. CocuTz. Yes. 

Senator Symington. You do not know Mr. Lyons? 

Dr. CocuTZ. I met him a few times, but I would not say that I know 
him. 

Senator Symington. Have you ever discussed his religion with him ? 

Dr. CocuTZ. No. 

Senator Symington. Mr. Kretzmann told you that he was an athe- 
ist; is that right? 

Dr. CocuTZ, Mr. Kretzmann told me that Mr. Kretzmann had 
stated already to somebody else 

Senator Symington. Say that again. 

Dr. CocuTZ. Mr. Kretzmann said to me that he had alreadjr stated 
to somebody else that the Chief of the religious desk is an atheist. 

Senator Symington. How did that come up in your talk with Mr. 
Kretzmann ? 

Dr. Cocutz. Well, I was complaining about the fact that we do not 
use enough scripts and material to uphold the faith of the religious 
people, in any kind of religion, behind the Iron Curtain. Because 
I felt that especially around Christmas or any other seasons, it is one 
of the main weapons that we can use against communism, because the 
people in Eastern Europe are very religious. "Wlierever they can, as 
far as that can be, the churches are packed, and we should stand for 
their religious freedom and help them to preserve their religious faith, 
and he said, "You know how the situation is. The Chief of the 
religious desk — I already said to somebody else that he is an atheist." 

Senator Symington. So he defended the fact that there was not 
enough religious hope in the broadcasts on the grounds that Mr. Lyons 
was an atheist ? 

Dr. CoGUTZ. I would not go that far. I am just quoting what he 
said. 

Senator Symington. I am only trying to follow how it came up and 
what was discussed. Who does Mr. Lyons report to ? 

Dr. Cocutz. I do not know. 

Senator Symington. You do not know that. Not to Mr. Armitaga 
and not to Mr. Kretzmann ? 

Dr. Cocutz. Not to Mr. Armitage. But I don't know if he reports 
to Mr. Kretzmann. 

Senator Symington. Well, do you not agree that we should have 
Mr. Lyons down, too, and get his information ? 

Dr. Cocutz. Oh, absolutely. 

The Chairman. Mr. Symington, I do not care what this witness or 
any other witness thinks about who we should have. _ Any man who is 
mentioned in a derogatory sense before this committee will have an 
absolute right to appear before the committee, and I do not need the 
advice of any witness on that. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 249 

Senator Symington. I was not discussing advice yon might need. 
I am worried about the fact that I have had telegrams from witnesses 
who say that their names have been taken in a wrong way and that 
their reputations have been attacked, and I think, as a member of this 
committee, I have a right to develop the thought that those people 
should be heard, and should be heard as quickly as possible — possibly 
before other additional witnesses. I am not a lawyer and I am not 
talking from the standpoint of evidence, but I agree with Senator 
Jackson that as soon as we can get these people in here and get their 
side of it, the sooner it is possible to have the issue clear cut to every- 
body, and these people should either be retained or suspended or dis- 
charged based on the nature of their defense against these accusations 
that are made against them. 

The Chairman. May I say, Senator, that I am not clairvoyant. 
I do not know when the Senators get wires from witnesses. Any wit- 
ness who wants to appear, if he will contact the chairman or contact 
the staff, or, when he contacts one of the Senators, if the Senator will 
pass the wire on to me or the staff, that witness will be called. I may 
say that this morning I received a number of wires from New York 
from people who read the New York Herald Tribune. Now, here is a 
statement in the Tribune Sunday. And I do not, as I said before, read 
this with any hope of trying to reform the paper. They seem to find an 
anti-Communist under every bed. But I do want to call this to the 
attention of the Senator : 

Derogatory testimony about Troup Mathews, editor of the Voice's French 
Section, led him to issue an indignant statement. He said lie would be \A'illing 
to deny under oath the "fantastic" tales that were told about him, but the Mc- 
Carthy group had not given him a chance to testify and answer the charges 
against him. 

As a result of that, I have gotten several wires damning the com- 
mittee from hell to breakfast because they would not let Troup Math- 
ews appear. The fact of the matter is that Mathews appeared before 
Senator McClellan and myself. Then, before a sizable number of 
newsmen, he was asked whether he wanted to appear in a public session 
and told if he wanted to do that he would have the absolute right to 
do it, and he said that he did not know whether he wanted to a]:>pear 
in public or not, that he would think it over and talk to his friends and 
let us know whether he would appear in a public session or not. 

I merely make mention of this to make it clear that those witnesses 
are being offered the chance to appear. 

Now, I think it should be stated at this time — Counsel, am I correct 
in this? — that Mr. Mathews, No, 1, denied the testimony about the col- 
lective farm ; No. 2, he said that he had been solicited to join the Com- 
munist Party, but he had refused; and No. 3, that he had attended 
only one Communist meeting. 

Was that his testimony ? I am not talking about any report. I am 
talking about his testimony. 

Mr. CoHN. That is his testimony on those points. 

The Chairman. And he has been given the right to appear. 

Every witness will be given an absolute right to appear. I cannot 
call them all at once. We have 5 Senators ; there are 7 sitting in the 
committee. Take, for example, today. We have Mr. Auberjonois. 
Some statements were made about him. We are going to have other 
witnesses. I assumed this witness before us might take 10 or 15 min- 



250 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

iites. There are many important thin<Ts the Senators want to go into. 
As a result, it has taken an hour and a half, which means we will not 
be able to put on all the witnesses that we have asked to come. They 
will all have a rio:ht to appear. I have repeated that over and over and 
over, and I am going to continue to repeat it. 

Senator Jackson. Mr. Chairman, I do not think the problem that 
has been raised relates to their right to appear. I think the question 
arises as to the delay from the time the name has been brought in until 
he is heard. I think that is the point. 

The Chairman. Well, whom do you want brought in, and when, 
Senator'? If you would like to set the order of calling witnesses, 1 
would be glad to do it. Let us make this clear. I have tried to run 
this in a very orderly fashion. I have had no objection from any 
Senators, either Republicans or Democrats, on this. If there is any 
witness that any Senator wants called, he will be called instanter. I 
will be glad to break into any testimony and have him called. In the 
absence of that, I will try to run this hearing as I think it should 
be run. 

Now, we are calling Mr. Harris tomorrow. Mr. Harris is the 
subject of some very, very serious accusations in executive session. 
I decided to jiut him on before we put the witnesses against him on. 
I have instructed the staff to give Mr. Harris a resume of the testimony 
against him. How we can handle that more fairly to a witness I 
do not Iniow. 

Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, can I make a point on this? 
We had a man named Ayres who testified against a man named Bauer. 
If you remember, you then had a man named Puhan, to whom both 
reported. Bauer sent me a telegram in which he asked to be heard, 
and I so reported to the committee. Puhan said that Bauer was a 
good fellow and that Ayres was a good fellow ; that he had told them 
both to get along. You remember that testimony. Somebody had 
asked me why Bauer has not been called, and therefore I was express- 
ing the hope that as these people get criticized, they be allowed to 
come before the committee to defend their name. 

Senator Jackson. As soon as possible. We all agree they are 
coming; but as soon as posible. I think that is the whole point, Mr. 
Chairman. There is not any desire to criticize the fact that they are 
not going to be called. I think the problem that is being presented 
is when they are called. 

There are three others, you remember. We brought that up in 
committee. All 3 signed a wire; Goldman — and who were the other 
2? 

Mr. CoHN. The three were Goldman, Harold Berman, and Taylor. 
Their chief, the Chief of the Newsroom, Mr. Zorthian, and 1 of his 
assistants, came over and had a 2-hour talk with Mr. Schine and 
myself, in which we went over the whole situation in the newsroom, 
aiid I reiterated the fact that these other people working under him 
would be called whenever they wanted to be called. In fact, I dis- 
cussed some of the possible evidence that would be produced on their 
calling, and some of the things we want to go over with them, and I 
have heard no further communication from them. I telephoned 
Mr. Bauer, after receipt of the telegram from him. I talked to him 
over the phone, and he knows that he in due course will be called before 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 251 

the committee, and I think he is perfectly well satisfied from a timing 
standpoint. 

There is still, I might explain, Mr. Chairman, certain additional 
evidence concerning Mr. Bauer that we did want to have in the 
record so that we could have the whole thing in at once. Now, we 
have had Mr. Kretzmann's name mentioned here this morning. We 
have five witnesses who have what we believe to be quite important 
information that they are prepared to give under oath concerning 
Mr. Kretzmann, and the question is that we can have it in and out, 
each time, or we can have it proceed regularly, in the order of a trial, 
and then luive the person who is the subject of the testimony come in 
with the full record before him prepared and make a complete state- 
ment to the committee so that he can have the whole thing there at the 
right time. 

The Chairman. I think. Counsel, Senator Symington makes a 
good point when he says that if there is very damaging evidence 
presented against John Jones today, and then if John Jones is not 
called for 2 weeks, it may do him a considerable injustice. So let us 
have this understood. And I think it has been. If a witness merely 
says, "^'I want to be called in due course," I want you to do what you 
have been doing. Contact him, and explain how many other witnesses 
there will be on his situation, and let him know when he will be called 
in the normal order. And if he says, "I want to be called immediately 
to answer this, because I am being embarrassed by the testimony," 
then we will call him immediately. 

Mr. CoHN. Very good. 

The Chairman. So that will be the modus operandi in the future. 

Is that acceptable ? 

Senator Symington. I want to thank the chairman for understand- 
ing the point, and I appreciate the position he takes on it. 

Senator Jackson. To be helpful, along this same line, when testi- 
mony comes out in executive session that a certain witness that will 
be heard in open session is going to name a certain individual for 
various reasons, would it not also be a very good idea to advise that 
person, so that he can be here at the time when the charges are being 
brought ? 

The Chairman. I think that would be an excellent idea. 

Senator Jackson. And then if they say they want to be heard later, 
that is their problem. 

The Chairman. I think that is an excellent idea. What we have 
been doing so far. Senator, is to cidl one of the sujieriors. I have been 
trying to keep in touch with the new people in the State Department, 
letting them know roughly what witnesses will be called, and I try 
to give them a resume of the testimony, so that they can have a man 
here. 

I think it might be well, where an individual is named in executive 
session, that he be notified that he will be named in public session, 
so that he can be here. I may say this witness has not appeared in 
executive session. 

Senator Jackson. Let him be asked when he wants to appear, so 
that he will not be sending us wires saying he wants to be heard. 
Then he will be right on the record, and if he wants to defer, that is 
his problem. 



252 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

The Chairman. May I ask the Senators this : Normally, we go into 
this in executive session, but inasmuch as we have started on this 
question of Reed Harris, who is the Acting Director of the entire 
information program, the Senators are roughly aware of the general 
picture about Reed Harris. Question : If we call all the witnesses on 
Reed Harris, it will mean that we will be putting in testimony on 
him for perhaps 4 or 5 days, and he would not be able to appear to 
answer that until sometime next week. If that is done, there will 
be the screaming by certain elements that Harris is being mistreated. 
Now, what I have tentatively decided to do is to let him appear first, 
and give him a resume of the testimony against himself. Of course, 
then he can object and say, "Well, I do not know what I am answering. 
I have not heard the testimony against myself." 

Senator Jackson. Then he is on the spot. You have him on record 
saying that he knows what the story is, and he has a chance to be 
fully apprised, and he has made his statement. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you this : Is it acceptable with the other 
Senators that we call Reed Harris tomorrow morning before the 
witnesses are put on against him, and have the staff give him a resume 
of the testimony that has appeared in executive session and that will 
appear ? Is that acceptable to the Senators ? 

Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, we had Reed Harris up here 
in executive session. Has he insisted that he wants to be heard im- 
mediately in open session? 

Senator Jackson. Why do we not ask him, Mr. Chairman, whether 
he wants to be heard first, or whether he want to be heard at the 
conclusion ? 

Senator Symington. I think we did ask him, and I think he did 
want to be heard. 

The Chairman. I do not recall any specific request, but I think he 
indicated that, if this testimony on him were made public, he wanted 
to have a chance to answer it as it might do him damage, and he wanted 
to appear. Was that not the impression you got, Stu ? 

Senator Symington. My impression was that he wanted to testify. 

The Chairman. So we will hear Reed Harris at 10 : 30 tomorrow 
morning. 

Are we through with this witness ? 

Senator Mundt. I have some questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Did Mr. Kretzmann identify the names of the religious leaders 
to whom he indicated that the head of the religious desk was an 
atheist ? 

Dr. CocTJTz. Not as far as I recollect. 

Senator Mundt. I understand, about this script we have been dis- 
cussing, which I think is a good script, that Mr. Kretzmann found 
some fault with it, made some criticism of it, and suggested to you 
that you not use it, but that it was used over 3 of the 5 language desks, 
the South American language desk, the North European language 
desk, and 1 other. Is that right? 

Dr. CocuTz. Yes. As far as I know. They told me they used it. 

Senator Mundt. Are they also under Mr. Kretzmann? 

Dr. CocuTz. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. You have got me a little confused as to why Mr. 
Kretzmann would object to 3'our using it in the Balkan area and be 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 253 

agreeable to its being used in Soutli America and the North European 
desk and these others. 

Dr. CocuTz. I was under the impression that those chiefs of those 
divisions did not ask him about his opinion. 

Senator Mundt. What is that ? 

Dr. CocuTZ. I was under tlie impression that those chiefs of those 
divisions did not ask him about his opinion if they should use it or not. 
They went on their oavu. That is my impression. 

Senator Mundt. Were they criticized or reprimanded for using it? 

Dr. CocuTZ. I don't know. 

Now, about the religious question, I would like only to add this 
much, that I did not state here in detail what should be done about 
religion behind the Iron Curtain, and because of that I am going to 
give to the committee a memoi-andum which I sent to the Voice of 
America, which will contain my ideas in a positive way about what 
should be done about fighting communism at the religious level. 

Senator Mundt. Is that about the same length as your other 
memorandum ? 

Dr. CocuTz. Longer than this one. 

Senator Mundt. I think it would be a good idea to accept that for 
the record, Mr. Chairman, so that we can have that. 

The Chairman. It will be made a part of the record. 

(The material referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 18" and will 
be found in the appendix on p. 326.) 

The Chairjvian. I am also going to ask the reporter to reproduce 
the document entitled "Five Evils of Marxism," bearing the name 
J. T. Cocutz, with the name "Kretzmann" written in in pencil. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 19" and will 
be found in the appendix facing page 326.) 

The Chairman. Do you remember the date you prepared this, 
Doctor? 

Dr. CocuTz. It was, as you see, in connection with Mr. Joseph 
Martin's speech, and that is the way in which I could identify it. I 
do not remember exactly the date, but Mr. Joseph Martin might have 
given a speech in the House of Representatives, and it was in connec- 
tion with that. I don't remember exactly the date. 

The Chairman. This will have very little meaning unless the mark- 
ings on it also appear in the record, Mr. Reporter. I wish you would 
try to indicate every notation in the margin, every place where you 
have something underlined, any check in the margin. And if you can 
read it, reproduce what is written ^t the end in longhand. 

I may say that this appears to be an excellent script, Doctor. 

Dr. CocuTZ. Thank you. 

The Chairman. It is well and intelligently written. 

Any further questions ? 

Let me ask the committee, when would you like to have Dr. Lyons 
here ? I think in view of the fact that he heads the religious desk 
and has been accused, or I should not say accused, but it has been 
stated that he is an atheist, it would be important to find out whether 
an atheist is running the religious desk. We could phone him and 
ask him to come down this afternoon, if you like. I think once we 
get into the Reed Harris phase of this, we will be on that for several 
days. I would rather not break in on it. Would you think we should 



254 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

phone him and ask him if he can, without any difficulty, come down 
this afternoon? Or ask him over the phone? 

Senator Jackson. He may not want to be heard. Give him the 
opportunity, though. 

The Chairman. Ask him, No. 1, whether he is running the religious 
desk ; No. 2, whether he says he is or is not an atheist. If he says he 
is, that gives us the entire picture. We do not need him as a witness. 

I may say the measure of whether we hear witnesses is not whether 
they want to be heard. We have heard some rather reluctant wit- 
nesses so far, and we will hear more. The measure is, No. 1, anyone 
who can add to the picture and, No. 2, anyone who says "I think I can 
add to the picture," and wants to be heard. I think it should be 
clear that no member of the committe is criticizing Mr. Lyons because 
he may or may not be an atheist. 

Dr. CocuTz. I don't, either. 

The Chairman. We do not care what he is, except insofar as it 
may affect his j ob. 

Senator Symington. May I ask you about one more point ? 

Dr. CocuTz. Yes, sir. 

Senator Symington. You said that Mr. Kretzmann's reason, given 
you, for less active promulgation of the American concept on the air, 
along the lines you thought of, from the religious standpoint, was 
because the man who ran the desk was an atheist ? 

Dr. CocuTz. I did not say it that way. 

Senator Symington. I tried to find out how the conversation came 
up with respect to the religious viewpoint of Mr. Lyons, and it is 
my understanding that that is what you said. 

Dr. CocuTz. Well, I have to be, sir, very truthful. The conversation 
was quite a long time ago, and the only thing that I recollect is 
exactly this: that we were sitting at a table together, and I was 
discussing together with him my ideas about what the Voice of 
America should do against communism at the religious level. And 
in that conversation Mr. Kretzmann made that statement: that he 
had told somebody else that the chief of the religious desk was an 
atheist. 

The Chairman. May I interrupt? 

Mr. Auberjonois, you are down here with your attorney, I assume 
liaving brought your lawyer down from New York, which caused you 
some inconvenience and cost you some money. We thought we would 
get to you this morning. If you had been here in time, we would 
have. I guess it was not your fault. The weather held you up. 

We can postpone the other work and put you on this afternoon, if 
you would prefer. We will do that if you want to go on this after- 
noon. Otherwise, you will be called back. Would you rather go on 
this afternoon ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. Oh, yes ; absolutely, sir. 

The Chairman. Then you will be put on at 2 o'clock this afternoon. 

May I ask you this : You asked us whether or not you could submit 
a written statement. We told you "yes," but that under the rules of 
the Eeorganization iVct and the rules of the conunittee you have to 
present it 24 hours ahead of time. I know tluit was impossible, be- 
cause you were only called yesterday. So, in your case, we will waive 
the time insofar as'submission of your statement is concerned. If you 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 255 

want to submit a statement, you can do it when you appear here this 
afternoon. Do you follow me, Mr. Auberjonois? 

Mr. Auberjonois. I am sorry. Senator. There is a lot of noise. 

Mr. MiGDAL (fcounsel to Mr. Auberjonois). May I say that we have 
the statement and are ready to present it now or any other time. 

The CHAiRMAisr. Will you o;ive it to the staff now? You will be 
able to present it, then, this afternoon. We are waiving the 24-hour 
limitation in your case, because you were called at such a late time. 
So, you will give a copy of that to Mr. Cohn now, and we will have 
you at 2 o'clock. 

( Wliereupon, at 12 : 05 p. m., a recess was taken until 2 p. m. this 
same day.) 

AFTERNOON SESSSION 

(The committee reconvened at 2 p. m., upon the expiration of the 
recess.) 

The Chairman. Mr. Auberjonois? 

Will you raise your right hand, sir? In this matter now in hearing 
before the committee, do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the 
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Auberjonois. I do. 

The Chairman. Will you identify your counsel, Mr. Auberjonois? 

TESTIMONY OF FERNAND AUBERJONOIS, POLICY UNIT, VOICE OF 
AMERICA (ACCOMPi-NIED BY HIS COUNSEL, LESTER MIGDAL) 

Mr. Auberjonois. INIy counsel is Lester Migdal, M-i-g-d-a-1. 

The Chairman. The first name is Lester? 

Mr. Auberjonois. Yes. 

The Chairman. And you are Mr. Auberjonois. Will you spell it 
for us, please ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. A-u-b-e-r-j-o-n-o-i-s. 

The Chairman. And your first name ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. Fernand, F-e-r-n-a-n-d. 

The Chairman. Wliat is your position with the Voice? 

Mr. Auberjonois. My position with the Voice is one of the members 
of the Policy Unit, under Mr. Edwin Kretzmann. 

The Chairman. You are part of the Policy Unit ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And who are the other two men in the Policy Unit ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. Mr. Edwin Kretzmann is Chief of the Policy 
Unit, and Mr. Gordon Knox, K-n-o-x. 

The Chairman. Mr. Gordon Knox. 

Mr. Auberjonois. He is assistant. 

The Chairman. His first name is Gordon ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. So, you are assistant to the Chief of the Policy 
Section. 

Mr. Auberjonois. I think I am third in line, sir. 

The Chairman. In any event, there are three people in the Policy 
Section. The Chief is Edwin Kretzmann. And you are one of the 
assistants. 

29708— 53— pt. 4 3 



256 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Mr. AuBERjoNOis, One of the assistants ; yes, sir. 
The Chairman. And Mr. Knox is the other assistant; is that 
correct ? 

Mr. AuBERjONOis. Yes, sir. • 

Tlie Chairman. Now, just to get this chain of command clear, Mr. 
Brad Connors is the Policy Chief of the entire International Infor- 
mation Administration ; right? 

Mr. Auberjonois. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. So that, when we talk about the Policy Chief of 
the Voice, we are talking about the Policy Chief of one of the five 
branches of the international information program? 

Mr. Auberjonois. That is right, the broadcasting activities. 

The Chairman. When were you promoted to this job as assistant 
to the Policy Chief? 

Mr. Auberjonois. It was in May 1952, sir. 

The Chairman. Now, do you know a Mr. Houseman ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. Is that John Houseman, MGM producer? 

The Chairman. Do you know John Houseman? 

Mr. Auberjonois. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What corporation is he with ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. He is with MGM as a producer. 

The Chairman. You have heard of the Media, M-e-d-i-a, Corp.? 

Mr. Auberjonois. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And Mr. Houseman was one of the officers of that 
corporation ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. I understand that Mr. Houseman was a member 
of Media. 

The Chairman. Well, you understand ? You know he was, do you 
not? 

Mr. Auberjonois. I do ; yes. 

The Chairman. You know he was one of the top men in the Media 
Corp., do you not? 

Mr. Auberjonois. Yes ; I knew he was one of the three or four. I 
don't know the exact composition of Media Productions. 

The Chairman. And you were purchasing what you call packages 
from Media Corp. ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. I was not, no, sir. 

The Chairman. The Voice was, then? 

Mr. Auberjonois. An operation called the Transcribed Programs 
Project. 

The Chairman. All right. The Voice of America was purchasing 
what you refer to as a package? 

Mr. Auberjonois. Package programs; that is right. 

The Chairman. When you refer to a package, you refer to a half- 
hour program? 

Mr. AuBERJC 
can be an hour. 

The Chairman. Now, the packages which you purchased from the 
Houseman corporation : Do they vary from 15 minutes to an hour, or 
were they all half -hour programs? 

Mr. Auberjonois. These were, I believe, all half hour. 

The Chairman. All half hour? 

Mr. Auberjonois. Yes, sir. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 257 

The Chairman. Now, there is what is known as the Hollywood 
Coordinating Committee, is there not? 

Mr. Atjberjonois. I don't know much about it, sir ; but I have heard 
of it. 

The Chair]man. Well, in any event, you know that Hollywood set 
up a committee headed by George Murphy to cooperate with the Voice 
in producing anti-Communist material? 

Mr. Atjberjonois. No, sir. 

The Chairman. You do not know that ? 

Mr. AuBERjONois. No. 

The Chairman. Do you know of any Hollywood group that was 
set up to work with the Voice ? 

Mr. AuBERjoNOis. The only name I have seen mentioned, or remem- 
ber, is the Hollywood Coordinating Committee ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That is what I said, the Hollywood Coordinating 
Committee. 

Mr. AuBERjoNOis. Oh, I heard the name of Murphy, which I did 
not 

The Chairman. Do you know whether Murphy was active in that? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. I don't know that. 

The Chairman. In any event, there was the Hollywood Coordi- 
nating Committee, which was set up to work with the Voice in its 
program of combating communism. Is that right? 

Mr. Auberjonois. I don't know whether the mission was combating 
communism, sir. 

The Chairman. I see. 

Mr. Auberjonois. I know it was to bring at least to certain areas 
of the world a picture of Hollywood, which was a true picture. 

The Chairman. Through the Voice of America ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. And use the artists ; yes, sir. 

The Chairjvian. Through the Voice of America ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. Yes, sir ; through the Voice of America. 

The Chairman. And you said you do not know whether this com- 
mittee had the purpose of combating communism or not. Did the 
Voice have that as its main project, combating communism ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. As an overall mission ? That depends very much 
on the areas. 

The Chairman. I see. In other words, in some areas you would 
say that w^as the principal mission. In some areas, combating com- 
munism was not the principal mission. 

Mr. Auberjonois. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. Did the time come when this Hollywood Coordi- 
nating Committee broke oif its relationship with the Voice of America ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And did they give as a reason the fact that you 
had made contracts with Houseman's group and that Houseman's 
group was purchasing, or ratlier employing, either Communists or 
Communist-line writers to produce the package ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. I do not remember that as a reason, sir. 

The Chairman. What was the reason ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. To my knowledge, the break between Media and 
the coordinating committee occurred in Hollywood after an inter- 
view with Charlie Chaplin by one of the people working for Mr. 
Houseman. 



238 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

The Chairman. Charlie Chaplin was being used by Houseman's 
group to produce your packages? 

Mr. AuBERjONOis. No. There was, I believe, one spot to be recorded 
as an interview, and not at our request. The Voice of America had 
not ordered such an interview. 

The Chairman. Now, will you listen to my question? The ques- 
tion was : Was Media Corp. — that is, Houseman's group — employing 
Chaplin in any capacity to produce the packages which were pur- 
chased by the Voice ? 

Mr. AuBERjONOis. I don't believe that the word "employing" is 
exactly what you mean, sir. 

The Chairman. Well, using. 

Mr. AuBERjONois. He was interviewed. 

The Chairman. Were they using him on the air, in the programs ? 

Mr. AuBERjoNOis. They intended, at least — I think that they in- 
tended to interview Charlie Chaplin among other artists. And, when 
they did that, the coordinating committee objected. 

The Chairman. You say "they intended to." Actually, Chaplin 
helped produce some of the packages, did he not ? — packages delivered 
to the Voice and paid for by the Voice ? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. As a producer, sir ? No ; I don't think 

The Chairman. I do not care how he was used, as a producer, au 
a broadcaster. You understand my question, Mr. Auberjonois ? You 
understand that, because we have gone into this with you before. 
You understand that Mr. Chaplin was employed or hired or used, 
call it what you may, in the production of the packages which the 
Voice purchased. Is that true or is that untrue ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. Charlie Chaplin was used or was about to be 
used by the contractor, and not on orders of the Voice, sir. 

The Chairman. Is it true that the Hollywood Coordinating Com- 
mittee broke their relationship with the Voice and made the claim 
that you were using Chaplin and other Communists and pro-Com- 
munists to produce the packages ? Was that their claim ? I am not 
asking you whether it was true or not. I am not asking you whether 
their claim was true, but was that their claim when they broke their 
relationship with you ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. I was not on the coast and had nothing to do 
with the arrangements for those programs. I have seen a report that 
said that ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. So you do know 

Mr. Auberjonois. I do know that one of the reasons given was that 
some of the people employed by Mr. Houseman were either directly 
or indirectly accused. 

The Chairman. Now, Mr. Auberjonois, I am having some trouble 
with your name. 

Mr. AxTBERJONOis. I don't blame you, sir. I have, too, sometimes. 

The Chairman. Is that the correct pronounciation, Auberjonois? 

Mr. Auberjonois. Auberjonois. 

The Chairman. You know that there is a State Department rule 
against any employee who is in a position to determine who shall 
get a contract having his wife or close relatives work for the con- 
tractor and receive a salary from that contractor; is that right? 

Mr. Auberjonois. I believe there is a rule, which I have seen only 
very recently, that was in the contract, which I never saw when they 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 259 

were signed. And I believe that rule applies, or uses the term "di- 
rectly or indirectly in connection with employment." 

The Chairman. AVliat was the Voice paying per package, per 
half-hour program ? 

Mr. AuBERjoNOis. Well, there were several series of packages pro- 
duced by the Voice, or ordered, contracted for, by the Voice, by an 
organization called the Transcribed Programs Project. And I believe 
that the fii-st series — as I say, I have not negotiated the contracts, or 
do not know the terms of the ccntract, but the figures varied between 
$900 per half hour and, I believe, $1,200 for the second series. 

The Chairman. In other words, the second series was costing about 
$350 more per package than the first series; is that correct? 

Mr. Atjber.tonois. I don't know, sir, exactly the figures of these 
j3ackages. They were established by the Transcribed Programs Proj- 
ect and then by tlie Overseas Services Section. 

The Chairman. Mr. Auberjonois, do you know that when the sec- 
ond series was purchased by the Voice the price increased by approxi- 
mately $250 per package? 

Mr. Auberjonois. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Did we not tell you to check on that, the last time 
you were before this committee ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. That was on Saturday, sir. I have had no access 
to any of the files, which are in a section to which I have never 
belonged. 

The Chairman. Now, the second contract was made on the 6th of 
March 1952. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. The second 

The Chairman. The second contract with Media; Houseman's 
group. 

Mr. Auberjonois. May I check, sir? 

The Chairman. Certainly. 

Mr. Auberjonois. I do not have that date on any of the papers 
I have. 

The Chairman. In any event, you know it was in early March of 
1952? 

Mr. Auberjonois. I would not know when the contracts were signed, 
sir, anyway. 

The Chairman. Counsel informs me it was March 6. 

Wlien did your wife go on the payroll of Media ? 

Mr, Auberjonois. My wife never went on the payroll of Media, sir. 

The Chairman. When did she start getting paid from Media ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. My wife worked as a freelancer, without any 
contract, or even any agreement to work with Media, on a purely per- 
sonal arrangement with Mr. Houseman as a writer, and received some 
money for that contract — or, if you can correct the record, for that 
agreement. 

The Chairman. Did you get my question? The question was: 
When did she first start receiving pay ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. I believe it is in May or June of 1951. 

The Chairman. When did she first start to work for Media, pro- 
duce material for Media, for which she was finally paid in May? 

Mr. Auberjonois. I believe it was in April, sir, or in March. I don't 
remember. 



260 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

The Chairman. It was in March or April ? 

Mr. AuBEKJONOis. Yes; I think so. I don't remember the dates 
exactly. 

The Chairman. Well, now, you told us the other day it was in 
March. Do you have any reason to have changed that I 

Mr. AuBERJONois. No, sir; because I did not check any records, 
I have no access to them. 

The Chairman. In other words, you made this contract, or the 
Voice made the contract, with Media, on March 6, and she started to 
produce work for Media in March, or April, you say. Is that right? 

Mr. AuBERjONOis. I think it is later than March. 

The Chairman. Now, how much per package did she get I 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. She received, I believe, $250 for half -hour script, 
and I must add that there never w^as any secret about it. It was com- 
pletely open. 

The Chairman. Now, is it correct that you were in a position to 
approve or disapprove of the packages being purchased, in a position 
to take part in the decision as to w ho would get the contract ? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. No ; I think that is not the way I would put it, 
sir. There was a whole organization w^ith people specialized in that 
kind of work, who had full knowledge of all contractors and bidders, 
which I did not have, and full access to all the information, that I did 
not have either. 

The Chairman. Did you pass upon the product, before the con- 
tract was made ? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. Editorially. 

The Chairman. Senator Symington had a question. 

Senator Symington. Did you know that your wife was doing this 
work ? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. Yes, sir. Absolutely. I did. 

The Chairman. We have before us a memorandum, which I would 
like to have you glance at. This apparently is a purported copy of a 
contract, is it, Mr. Counsel ? 

Mr. CoHN. This is a memorandum supplied to us by the Voice of 
America in New York from the file on the Media contract, regard- 
ing a submission of proposed financial statement by Media for pay- 
ment by the Voice of America. 

The Chairman. This was marked approved by Fernand Auber- 
jonois. I am going to hand it to you and ask you if you can identify it. 

Mr. AuBERjONOis, Is there a signature on this document, sir? 

The Chairman. I just asked you what you can tell us about it. 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. I don't know. 

The Chairman. Do you know anything about it? It is marked 
approved by you and was supplied by the State Department, I believe. 
Is that correct? 

Mr. CoHN. From the Voice of America, from the official file. 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. I think the contractor's name is at the top of this 
document, sir, Gillespie S. Evans, for Michael Ries. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. These were the people who have always had re- 
sponsibility for contracts', and are no longer with the Voice. 

The Chairman. Mr. Auberjonois, the question is, Do you recognize 
that docvunent ? Do you recall having approved that particular trans- 
action ? 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 261 

Mr. AuBERjONOis. I cannot say that I have approved this document ; 
no, sir. 

The Chairjman. Will you read the language on the bottom of the 
document and see if that sounds familiar to you? Read it out loud. 

Mr. AuBERjoNOis (reading) : 

No full-time or part-time member of the Department of State may be employed 
for remuneration in the production of these shows. If the services of any De- 
partment of State employee are to be purchased, the employee will be remunerated 
by the Department of State with the necessary downward revision in the budget 
to be made. 

The Chairmax. What is the date of that document? 

Mr. AuBERjoNois. That document is dated June 30, 1951. That is 
not the second series of shows. 

The Chairman. So that as early as June 30, 1951, did you know that 
it was a violation of State Department rules to have your wife paid 
by the contractor whom the Voice hired ? 

May I see that again ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. I would first like to see, sir, the original docu- 
ment, to see whether I have actually approved. I would like also to 
find out Avhere the gentlemen who were in charge of that transcribed 
program project are at this time. 

The Chairman. Mr. Auberjonois, I am just interested now in know- 
ing whether at the time you were getting the money from Houseman's 
group you knew it was a violation of State Department regulations. 
For that reason I handed you this document dated May 5, 1951, with 
this language : 

No full-time or part-time member of the Department of State may be employed 
for I'emuneration in the production of these shows. If the services of any De- 
partment of State employee are to be purchased, the employee will be remunerated 
by the Department of State witli the necessary downward revision of the budget 
to be made. 

Were you aware of that rule ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. I don't believe I was aware of that rule at that 
time, but I know that it did not apply, definitely did not apply, to 
work by my wife, who was not a full-time employee. 

The Chairman. Did you aid your wife in producing these various 
packages? In writing the script? 

Mr. Auberjonois. No ; my wife can take care of script pretty well. 

The Chairman. Did you, or did you not? 

Mr. AuBERjONOi. I have aided in the production and writing of 
every script of that series, sir, foi: absolutely no remuneration what- 
soever. 

The Chairman. So that you aided your wife in producing these 
scripts ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. To a very minor extent, to the extent that she 
would let me. 

The Chairman. And your wife got paid for that? 

Mr. Auberjonois. My wife got paid for the work she did. 

The Chairman. So you say you would not consider this any viola- 
tion of the State Department rule, the fact that you helped her write 
a script, and she got paid for it, and the State Department said you 
could not get paid for it ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. I think that she can take full credit for the script. 

The Chairman. O. K. Now, Mr. Auberjonois, do you think the 



262 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

claim of the Hollywood Coordinating Committee was well founded 
when they broke off relations with the Voice because they claimed 
that this corporation you were using, Media, was using Communist 
and fellow travelers to produce the work ? Or do you think that was 
not a well-founded claim ? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. I am not sure that that was the claim, sir. 

The Chairman. Well, now, you said that you saw the memorandum. 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. I saw a memorandum. 

The Chairman. What was the claim in the memorandum? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. The claim in the memorandum, I believe, was the 
use made of the Charlie Chaplin interview, or the contacting of Charlie 
Chaplin for a broadcast intended to be included in a package program. 

The Chairman. In other words, you say their onlv objection was to 
Charlie Chaplin? 

Mr. MiGDAL. We have the record here, if you wish to consult it. 

The Chairman. Mr. Auberjonois, did they not object to the cor- 
poration itself because of the large number of Communists and Com- 
munist-front connections some of the members had? 

Mr. Auberjonois. I don't think so, sir. 

Mr. Cohn. The objection was specifically to Mr. Houseman and the 
number of Communist fronts to which he belonged. 

Mr. AuBERjoNoi. I don't see anything on that in the only memo- 
randum I have ever seen on it. 

The Chairman. May I see that memorandum ? 

Mr. Auberjonois, you hand me a memorandum from Alfred Puhan. 
Do you have any memorandum from the Hollywood Coordinating 
Committee ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. No, sir. 

The Chairman. You do not? 

Mr. Auberjonois. I do not think I have. 

The Chairman. And in any event, after this Hollywood Coordinat- 
ing Committee objected, the contract with Media was canceled? 

Mr. Auberjonois. That is right, sir, yes. 

The Chairman. How many packages had they produced in the 
series when the contract was canceled ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. I don't know. I believe it was three. But, again, 
I was not in any of the conversations or discussions that took place 
at that time. This was a transcribed programs series in the Overseas 
Services Section. 

The Chairman. Now, your wife did not work on the production 
of any of the packages under the first series. Is that correct? 

Mr. Auberjonois. No, sir. 

The Chairman. She worked on the second series of packages, at 
$250 per package ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The contract was canceled after three? 

Mr. Auberjonois. No, that was the third series you are referring 
to. I am sorry. That was canceled. The second series was produced 
and distributed and played. 

The Chairman. In any event, your testimony is that you received 
a total of $750? 

Mr. Auberjonois. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. Will you tell us what part you took — — 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 263 

Mr. AuBERjoNOis. I believe that income-tax return was to be intro- 
duced as an exhibit, sir. 

The Chairman. Yes, upon your counsel's request, and if you want 
it introduced, it will be received. 

(The income-tax return referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 20," 
and may be found in the files of the subcommittee.) 

The Chairman. Mr. Auberjonois, will you tell us what, if any, con- 
versations or negotiations you had leading up to this contract with 
the Houseman group? 

Mr. Auberjonois. With the second series, sir? Whatever discus- 
sions I have had could only be completely informal and would bear 
very little weight, I think, on any decision by an organization that 
was set up to draft contracts and discuss them. I never sat at meet- 
ing with representatives of Media Productions and of the Department 
to discuss terms of contracts. I do not think I would have known, 
actually, what the domestic rates were in either studios or actors. I 
was primarily an editor and a writer. 

The Chairman. You were head of the French desk ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. I was the editor in chief of the French desk ; yes, 
sir. 

The Chairman. Known as the head, as the boss ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. But not in charge of that type of budget or that 
type of work at all. 

The Chairman. Well, you were the final word on the French desk, 
were you not? 

Mr. Auberjonois. Not on everything, sir ; oh, no. 

The Chairman. Well, who else was on the French desk who super- 
seded you ? Who on the French desk outranked you ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. Outranked me in terms of administrative work? 

The Chairman. Oh, work of any kind. 

Mr. Auberjonois. All administration was handled centrally at a 
higher echelon, sir. 

The Chairman. Was there anyone on the French desk who could 
be considered your boss, or were you the boss on the French desk? 

Mr. Auberjonois. I was the editor in chief, sir. I was the boss. 
But not in matters of administration. That is, that type of contract 
did not come under the budget of the French unit at any time. 

The Chairman . But insofar as the French desk was concerned, you 
were the top man ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. I w^as the top man on anything that concerned 
policy, programing, personnel, but not what I would refer to as ad- 
ministration or finances. 

The Chairman. You said you had very little to do with this con- 
tract. Do you mean that the product that went out over the air from 
the French desk was ordered, produced, without your having first 
approved it ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. No ; no. I took responsibility for editorial and, 
to a certain extent, production supervision. 

The Chairman. So that, before any product would be purchased, 
before any package would be purchased, you would have to look 
it over and either put your stamp of approval on it or not. Right ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. Well, I think the bidding was done in the fol- 
lowing way, sir. The bidders made recordings, which were not identi- 
fied, and which were listened to by a group of people as to production. 



264 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

The Chairman, Mr. Auberjonois, will you listen to my question? 
Did you or did you not approve the packages before they were pur- 
chased ? In other words, if I came in to make a contract to produce 
material for the French desk, and I would submit material, were you 
or were you not the man who would examine that material, listen 
to the broadcasts, and decide whether they were acceptable or not? 

Mr, Auberjonois. Yes, sir. But the contract was signed by that 
time, as far as I know. 

The Chairman. In other words, the contract would be signed be- 
fore you had a chance to approve the material ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. I think that is the way it went, sir ; although, as 
I say, I have not, for the first and second series at least, seen anything 
that looked like a contract. I know they exist, and I Imow they were 
signed. And I believe I have a memorandum which states that a 
contract was signed after a test recording was made : 

After a half-hour test show in French and German was auditioned and ap- 
proved by the respective deslis, we proceeded to purchase — 

that is Mr. Ross and Mr. Ries— 

to purcliase from this agency a total of 20 half-hour dramatic shows in French 
and German. 

I believe that this was an overall contract. 

The Chairman. Now, will you try and listen to my question again ? 

Before the purchase was made, did you have the opportunity to ap- 
prove or disapprove the product ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. I listened to tests, yes, sir ; from various bidders. 

The Chairman. That was before the purchase was made ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. That is right. 

The Chairman. I thought I understood you to say that you did 
that after the contract was signed. 

Mr. Auberjonois. No ; for the first series. The first time all bidders 
put in their claim 

The Chairman. Mr. Auberjonois, this is a very simple question, I 
think. You were head of the French desk. You were about to pur- 
chase a sizable number of half-hour broadcasts. My question is sim- 
ply this: Did you, as head of the French desk, place your stamp of 
approval upon those broadcasts for the corporation before the pur- 
chase was made ? 

Mr. xiuBERJONOis. I placed my stamp of approval on the product, 
but not on the firm, about which I knew nothing. 

The Chairman. In other words, you said that this product is what 
we want ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. I said that compared with the others that we 
had heard — other bidders were accepted, too, incidentally ; there were 
other producers — that that was the best. And it was. There is no 
doubt as to the quality or the talent of Mr. Houseman as a producer, 
I believe. 

The Chairman. Did you, before placing your stamp of approval, 
try to learn anything about the producer ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. Well, I knew him only through his reputation 
as a producer. I believe that at present he is engaged in producing on 
the coast. 

The Chairman. Will you try and stick to the question? The ques- 
tion is : As well as placing your stamp of approval on the product. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 265 

did you try to learn something about the producer? Did you want 
to know, for example, whether he was a member of the Communist 
Party? 

Mr. AuBERjONOis. No, sir. 

The Chairman. You did not care? 

Mr. AuBEEjONOis. I was mainly interested in the product, and I 
don't believe I had the means to find out whether the producer was — 
And I also understand it was not my job, besides. 

The Chairman. Are you not aware of the fact that there is an 
order to the effect that when you purchase piecemeal there must be 
security clearance ? Were you aware of that ? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. No, sir. I don't believe there is such an order. 

The Chairman. You do not think there is such an order ? 

Mr. AuBERjONOis. Purchasing piecemeal did not require security 
clearance at the Voice of America, except if it were done on a recur- 
rent basis, or a recurring basis. That means 4 or 5 times a month. 
Then a request would come in for a security check or a security 
clearance. 

The Chairman. Did you know that Houseman participated in a 
number of Communist fronts? 

Mr. AuBEBjONois. I did not, sir. 

The Chairman. When did you first learn that? 

Mr. AuBERJONois. I have heard subsequently that Mr. Houseman, 
at a certain time of his life, had been connected with organizations. 
But I had no reason to probe into the matter at that time. I was 
not in charge of that type of probe anyway. 

The Chairman. How well were you acquainted with him? 

Mr. AuBERjONois. How well ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. AuBERjONOis. I would say not half as well as the people who 
actually signed the contracts with him, sir. 

The Chairman. That means nothing at all to me. 

Mr. AuBERjoNOis. That means that Mr. Houseman had been in 
OWI, and I had never been in OWT. Actually, I had been in Gov- 
ernment exactly 5 months when these contracts were signed. 

The Chairman. Mr. Auberjonois, tell me how well you are ac- 
quainted with Houseman ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. I know Houseman, and I have known him mainly 
since 1951. I have seen him, I would say, 14 times in all. I know 
him now pretty well. 

Tlie Chairman. Does he live next to you ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. How long has he lived there ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. He has lived there, I assume, since approximately 
1942. . . Fi y 

The Chairman. Did you not suggest to him that he could do this 
work for the Voice ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. I may have mentioned the fact that package 
programs were being; made at the Voice, casually, but I believe that 
he was notified officially through the regular channels. I believe I 
have a copy of that order that went out, which I found only recently. 

The Chairman. Now. did you have any other business dealings 
with Houseman ? 



266 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Mr. AuBERjONOis. I never had any business dealings personally with 
Houseman, or Media. As I told the committee—and I believe I 
brought all the facts to the committee myself — my wife is in the real- 
estate business, in addition to doing many other things. And I be- 
lieve I gave to the committee a figure of $60 or $70, which she got as a 
broker on the deal on tlie Houseman house on the rental for a summer, 
through her employer. But it had no connection with either Media 
or the Department. It was a purely personal, private affair. 

The Chairman. Did you ever tell anyone else in the Voice about 
the fact that he was your close neighbor and a good friend, and that 
that w^ould aid in working out a close relationship if a contract were 
made with the Houseman firm ? 

Mr. AuBERjoNois. The first part of the statement is certainly cor- 
rect, that he was a close neighbor. He w^as not a close friend, and that 
w^ould not have influenced me in any way, sir, since I did not sign the 
contract. 

The Chairman. I am going to give you a contract to refresh your 
recollection. When you get through reading it, will you hand it back 
to me? 

Mr. AuBERjONOis. Who is that from? 

The Chairman. I understand Senator Cooper is here. 

We would like to have you come up and sit as a member of the 
committee. Senator. 

Senator Cooper. Thank you very much. 

The Chairman. May I have that, when you get through reading 
it? 

Mr. AuBERjONOis. I did not say that, sir. 

The Chairman. I did not ask you any question. I just handed you 
that. 

Mr. AuBERjONOis. I didn't make any statement there. I was 
quoted. Or I wasn't even quoted. Somebody said 

The Chairman. The question is : Did you tell anyone in the Voice 
that Houseman was a friend, a neighbor, and that the friendship and 
his being a neighbor of yours would help in working out a close 
relationship if the contract were given him? 

Mr. AuBERjoNois. I cannot imagine saying that a close relationship 
would facilitate a contract. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you this. As of today, do you think 
that it w^as wise to have given a contract to Houseman ? Would you 
do it over again? 

Mr. AuEERjoNois. Well, sir, I cannot feel any bad conscience about 
contracts, because, as I said, it is still a mystery to me how the organi- 
zation that was in charge of these contracts has so mysteriously disap- 
peared. I believe it is a case of buck passing. 

As to the propriety of doing any writing indirectly, through my 
wife, I would say that I wouldn't do it now. But I did not feel it 
to be improper, and I don't feel it to be improper. 

The Chairman. Do you think it was improper to give a contract to 
a man witli a list of Communist-front connections, who was also so 
objectionable to the Hollywood Coordinating Committee that they 
broke off relationships with you because of the type of people he was 
using to produce the shows ? 

Mr. AuBERjONois. Sir, I don't think that you 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 267 

The Chairman. In other words, using hindsight for the time being, 
do you think that this contract should have been given to Houseman's 
group ? 

Mr. AuBERJCNv IS. As a producer, yes, sir. If he was a controversial 
character, then 1 should have been told by the organization that is in 
charge of that kind of investigation, because I do not keep track of 
these things. 

The Chairman. Now, is it correct that you have ordered that no 
anti-Communist material be disseminated over the French networks 
which were being used by the Voice ? 

Mr. AuBERjoNOis. Absolutely untrue, sir. 

The Chairman. You have not ? 

Mr. AtJBERjoNois. I have a large number of memorandums showing 
exactly what my position was in relation to an information program to 
a friendly country, which is France. 

The Chairman. Did you ever say that you did not want any ob- 
vious Communist propaganda to be used over the French network? 

Mr. AuBERjoNois. I believe that any propaganda that is obvious, 
sir, is propaganda that is already lost. 

The Chairman. The question is: Did you ever order your desk 
not to use any obvious Communist propaganda over the French net- 
work which was used by the Voice ? 

Mr. AuBERjONOis. Obvious anti-Communist, sir? 

The Chairman. Obvious anti-Communist. 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. I am sorry. No, I believe that, if I may be al- 
lowed not to evade the question but to make it clearer, from my point 
of view^, the point of view of the propagandist, w^e had a problem. 
The problem was that we were not broadcasting over our own facil- 
ities. We were broadcasting over the facilities of a friendly govern- 
ment, that allowed us to make these broadcasts, provided they were 
cultural, informational, and to a certain extent political. These agree- 
ments exist. And we have so far protected them, sir. 

Senator Symington. I do not want to risk using your name. Can 
I ask you when you came to this country ? 

Mr. AuBERjoNOis. I came in 1933, sir. 

Senator Symington. 1933 ? 

Mr. AuBERjONOis. Yes, sir. 

Senator Symington. And where were you born ? 

Mr. AuBERjONOis. I was born in Switzerland. 

Senator Symington. In Switzerland. 

Mr. AuBERjoNois. Yes, sir. 

Senator Symington. And when did you join the Voice? 

Mr. AuBERjoNois. I joined the Voice in 1948, sir. 

Senator Symington. In 1948. 

Mr. AUBERJONOIS. Yes, sir. I was transferred from NBC, with the 
nongovernmentals, as we called them. 

Senator Symington. When did you first meet this Mr. Houseman ? 

Mr. AuBERjONOis. Mr. Houseman I met very briefly in 1944, when 
I was on leave from the Army, coming back from North Africa, and 
before going over to Normandy, and I saw him for 5 minutes at that 
time. That was the first time t met him. 

Senator Symington. And when did you firet find out that he had 
Communist background ? 



268 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Mr. AuBERjoNOis. I never knew it, I think, and I do not know it 
for sure, I must say. I have never heard of anything like that until 
probably 2 years ago, or a year ago. 

Senator Symington. A year ago? 

Mr. AuBERjONOis. Yes, sir. 

Senator Symington. But you still worked with him after you found 
that out ? 

Mr. AuBERjoNois. No, sir. I was not working with him. He was 
contracting with the Government. 

Senator Symington. I see. 

Mr. AuBERJONois. He was not in the unit. He was on the outside. 
He was a producer. 

Senator Symington. Did you tell anybody about it after you found 
out about his background ? Did you tell anybody about it, from the 
standpoint of having him eliminated from this work? 

Mr. AuBERjoNOis. He had eliminated himself already then, sir. 

Senator Symington. By that time? 

Mr. AuBERjoNois. Yes. 

Senator Symington. I see. 

Senator Mundt. When did you become a citizen ? 

Mr. AuBERJONois. I became a citizen, sir, in 1942, at the request of 
the Army. 

Mr. Migdal. Mr. Chairman, may we offer a prepared statement with 
respect to this matter to the members of the committee? And after 
the hearing, with the permission of the chairman and the commit- 
tee, may we circulate the statement to the press? 

The Chairman. May I say you do not need the permission of the 
committee to circulate any material to the press. I hope that day 
does not come. You can give the press anything you care to. 

Senator Mundt. In fact, you can circulate it. It does not carry the 
imprimatur of the committee on it. 

The Chairman. I have not read it, but you may circulate any state- 
ment you care to. 

Mr. Migdal. The first statement distributed this morning covered 
only matters gone into in open hearing. I have here another state- 
ment covering matters brought up in closed hearings. I wanted to be 
prepared to furnish something to the committee on that. 

The Chairman. Both statements will be marked and received. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 21" and may 
be found in the files of the subcommittee.) 

Senator Mundt. These broadcasts in French you talk about: do we 
pay for those, or does the French Government give them to us gratis ? 
Are there counterpart funds, or how is that handled? 

Mr. AuBfiRJONOis. No ; the facilities are paid for, the transmission 
costs are paid for, by the United States Government, but that is relayed 
over 22 stations, medium-wave stationSj by the French Government, 
as a service. 

Senator Mundt. Do they get any counterpart funds for that? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. They have received, I believe, some counterpart 
funds indirectly for equipment. 

Senator Mundt. You indicate that they exercise a sort of a direct 
or indirect censorship of the program. 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. No, sir; I wouldn't use the word "censorsliip." 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 269 

Senator Mundt. I say "indirect." I do not mean that they censor 
every script, but they set up certain criteria. 

Mr. AuBERjoNOis. Yes, sir. The criteria are those of the network, 
just as if CBS or NBC were rehaying every night, 6 : 30 to 7, a half 
hour from France. They would specify the type of program they 
want. And they probably would specify that they do not want an 
overdose of propaganda. 

Senator Muxdt. Are those the only programs for which you were 
responsible, going into France, those produced on a gratuity basis ? 

Mr. AuBERjoNOis. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. You also projected some direct, by shortwave? 

Mr. AuBERjoNois. "Well, I have had my differences of opinion with 
the Department on this, on this point. I have felt that we would 
never be able to explain our position at home if we did not have facili- 
ties to reach Western Europe without going through a foreign gov- 
erimient. I have made that request in 1950. I have made it in 1951. 
And I have made it in 1952. 

Senator Mundt. Do we not have such facilities now ? 

Mr. AUBERJONOIS. I would not call them satisfactory ; no, sir. The 
other programs have been eliminated, subsequently, and all we have 
now is the half hour, very useful in a sense and up to a point, over 
the French network. 

Senator Mundt. In other words, the only programs we are now 
beaming to France are those which fit the pattern of these criteria? 

Mr. Auberjonois. That is right. And that is one of the things, 
one of the questions I have raised, which I believe is under study. 
I do not know what has been done about it. 

The Chairman. May I ask one question? Mr. Auberjonois, have 
you ever cleared anyone on the basis that they were vouched for by 
Houseman ? 

Let me rephrase the question. After the Hollywood Coordinating 
Committee broke with the Voice because they claimed Houseman was 
a Communist-fronter employing men like Chaplin and others to pro- 
duce the show, after that, did you ever clear any employees because 
they were vouched for by Houseman ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. Sir, I believe clearance is an FBI function. 1 
probably didn't get the question. 

The Chairman. Well, now, you just got through telling us in the 
package shows they needed no security clearance. 

Mr. Auberjonois. No; I wouldn't give it to them anyway. 

The Chairman. So there was not an FBI function there, was there ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. That wouldn't be my function. I don't know 
whose function is was. 

The Chairman. Well, did you ever give anyone approval, in writ- 
ing, on the ground Houseman had vouched for them, after Houseman 
was publicly exposed? 

Mr. Auberjonois I may have. I don't remember any such case, 
but I may very well have. 

The Chairman. Would that not be a very unusual clearance, to 
clear them because a man had been exposed as a Communist-fronter, 
having hired Communist writers — clear them because he had approved 
them? 



270 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Mr. AuBERJONois. I would not clear them, sir. I would maybe — 
and I do not remember that case — recommend them. But they would 
still have to be cleared. 

The Chairman. In other words, you may have recommended some 
people because Houseman had approved them ? 

Mr. AuBERJONois. That would not be the only reason. I would 
think that there would be a question of qualification. Even if Mr. 
Houseman recommended somebody to me, I would first try and find 
out how that man could improve our output, whether he is a qualified 
broadcaster or a qualified writer. And secondly, I would put him 
through clearance, which would be done through the FBI, and he 
would be either accepted or turned down. 

The Chairman. Mr. Auberjonois, you just got through telling us 
that there was no FBI clearance, no security clearance, in the case of 
the package shows. So, how could you put him through the FBI? 
Was it not solely a case of your saying, "This man is all right," or 
"He is not all right"? 

Mr. AcjBERJONois. Oh, for package shows? As an actor? Or as 
a writer ? I don't know the case. I have recommended many people, 
with, I think, a rather low percentage of waste. I don't know the case 
you mention, sir. 

The Chairman. I just asked you whether you know whether or 
not you recommended anyone for employment on a package program 
because they had been cleared by Houseman after he had been exposed. 
If you do not know, tell me. 

Mr. Auberjonois. I don't know that case, sir. 

The Chairman. You do not know ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Getting back to this French broadcast, we broke 
off in the middle of it. About two-thirds of your Voice efforts in 
France are disseminated over the French Broadcasting System; is 
that right? 

Mr. Auberjonois. Now, the totality, sir. 

The Chairman. Pardon ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. The whole thing now, sir. That is all we have. 

The Chairman. Roughly, how much did you spend per year on the 
French program, while you were head of the desk? 

Mr. Auberjonois. I have found the answer to that problem, sir. 

The Chairman. You have found the answer now. Good. 

Mr. Auberjonois. It is still a partial answer, and the cost was 
$8,000 per month for that one program. 

No. Sorry. Correction. For a full hour a day. That is $8,000 
multiplied by 12. 

The Chairman. The other dny we asked you how much you spent 
a year, and you did not have any idea. 

Mr. Auberjonois. Well, I couldn't have a very good idea, sir. 

The Chairman. Is it your testimony that you now have checked, 
and you find the entire Voice program for France cost $8,000 a month? 

Mr. Auberjonois. That is still not an official figure, sir, because 
Saturday and Sunday the files were closed, and I have not been able 
to get this figure. But I figured it out on the basis of roughly the num- 
ber of writers, what I knew a producer was worth, facilities in a very 
general sense. The only thing I don't know is what is centralized 
administratively, which never comes under a unit budget. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 271 

The Chairman. When you left the French desk, when you were pro- 
moted, or, as one of the witnesses said, removed to a higher position, 
you were producing a half hour show per day. Is that right? 

Mr. AuBERJONois. No ; at that time, sir, we were still producing our 
hour per day. 

The Chair3Ian. How many men were employed to produce that 
liour show ? 

Mr. AuBERjONOis. Well, an hour divided into three different pro- 
grams 

The Chairman. How many men were employed on the French desk 
to produce that liour show ? 

Mr. AuBERjoNois. I believe 17, sir. 

The Chairman. That is full time? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. Full time, yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And how many part time ? How many part-time 
employees ? 

Mr. AuBERjoNois. None that I know of at that time. That means 
w. a. e., when actually employed, as part time. 

The Chairman. Were there any besides the 17 people? 

Mr. Auberjonois. Yes, there were contributors on the script basis. 

The Chairman. They were paid for that, I assume ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. They were paid for that ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I am trying to find out how many men contributed 
to produce that hour show, call them what you may. 

Mr. Auberjonois. This was established as a standard in the Voice ; 
so many minutes, so many people. 

The Chairman. Can you tell me how many men were employed 
to produce that hour show ? I am not trying to criticize you. I am 
just trying to get some information here. As head of the desk, you 
should know how many men were employed under you. 

Mr. Auberjonois. I gave you the figure of 17, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. How many other people? How many 
script writers ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. Oh, those were the script writers. Those were 
script writers, announcers, secretaries, everything. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Auberjonois. Including myself. 

The Chairman. Who else got some money for doing some work in 
connection with the hour program ? How many other people ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. An average of about six per month, on a once-a- 
week basis. 

The Chairman. Yes? An average of six per month on a once-a- 
week basis. That is very clear. Now go ahead. How many more 
people ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. That is all. 

The Chairman. In other words, you had 17 full-time people and 
6 that contributed ? 

Mr. Auberjonois, A script a week, yes, generally speaking. 

The Chairman. Have you had experience in radio broadcasting 
before ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. Yes, sir. 

29708— 53— pt. 4 4 



272 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

The Chairman. Do you think that that is a reasonable number 
of people to produce an hour's program '^ Or is it too many ? Or is 
the number too low ? 

Mr. AuBEEjONois. Well, sir, I don't believe that you can apply a rule 
of thumb on that. The half hour on the French network was a network 
program, which 

The Chairman, Can you tell me now whether that was too many 
people, or not enough, or just about the right number to produce that 
program ? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. For that type of program, it was just enough. 
Had we changed the type of program, it would have been too many. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Mr. AuBERjONOis. Had we made it short wave, without any produc- 
tion, or with very little production, it would have been too many. 

The Chairman. Did you ever give an order that there would be no 
obvious anti-Communist propaganda used over the French broad- 
casting facilities which the Voice was using ? 

Mr. AuBERJONois. I have always given orders that there should be 
no obvious propaganda, sir. But "anti-Communist" did not come into 
the question. 

The Chairman. The other day in executive session we tried to find 
out what you meant by "obvious," and I believe you finally said by 
"obvious" you meant what could be detected as anti-Communist propa- 
ganda. Is that the correct definition ? 

Mr. AuBERjoNOis. I think it is not quite as simple as that, sir. I 
would like to develop it, if I may. 

The Chx\irman. You may develop it as much as you like. I would 
like to know what you mean by that. 

Mr. AuBERjoNois. What I mean is if there are two ways, or three, or 
four, of attacking Communists in a friendly country. I do not mean 
an Iron Curtain country. One of the worst ways is to do it with the 
national label of a foreign government on our propaganda. That is, 
if we go and attack the Communists in France wearing our own coat 
of arms, this will not, at any time, be successful propaganda. The 
Soviets have infiltrated the Communist movement — or rather, the 
Communists are doing everything under the guise of or under the pro- 
tection of the French flag. They are Frenchmen against Frenclimen. 
We come as Americans against French Communists. And I don't 
think I want to develop in open sessions my ideas about propaganda 
against the Communists in free areas, because I might be indiscreet, 
but I would like to leave it at that, that we cannot fight from where 
we are. Either we fight in close contact, or we don't try and do it 
through these media, that are not adapted to phychological warfare. 

The Chairman. I would still like to know what you mean by "ob- 
vious." Do you mean propaganda that would appear to be Commu- 
nist to the average listener? I am not criticizing you. I am trying 
to find out what you have been doing over there. 

Mr. Atjbfjrjonois. Oh, no, sir. I am not on the defensive at all, sir, 
I assure you, about propaganda. 

The Chairman. What did you mean by "obvious"? You put out 
an order that there shall be no obvious anti-Communist propaganda 
over the French radio facilities to be used by the Voice. We went 
into great length the other day to find out what you meant by obvious 
and anti-Communist propaganda. As I recall, I asked you, do you 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 



273 ! 



mean obvious to an expert, or do you mean obvious to the average 
citizen listening to the program ? I would like to know now what you 
mean by that ban, when you said, "Do not use any obvious anti-Com- 
munist propaganda." 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. That is propaganda that is too obviously propa- 
ganda. I think the French people, our audience, is about the most 
skeptical and the most adverse, or the least prepared to accept propa- 
ganda in any form. 

The Chaikjvian. Would that ban prevent obvious criticism of com- 
munism ? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. No ; it would not. And in our files a real study 
of our output will show that there is plenty of that. 

The Chairman. In other words, you say that they could obviously 
criticize communism and Communists. Is that correct? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. We have criticized the Communists. 

The Chairman. No ; the question is as to this order of yours : Did 
you mean that they could openly criticize international communism 
and Communists, or did you mean they could not ? 

Mr. AuBERjoNois. The difference is this, sir, to my mind. And I 
may be wrong. We can attack Soviet Russia, Russian communism, 
the Cominform, but the moment we go against French communism, 
over the facilities of the French Government, we are automatically 
interfering in the affairs of a foreign country. And I don't believe 
that we are successful in doing it that way. If we have our own 
facilities, that is a different problem. And I have always recom- 
mended that. 

The Chairman. In other words, you say with our own radio sta- 
tions it would be all right to attack communism in France. 

Mr. AuBERjONois. Yes. sir. 

The Chairman. Over the French network, though, you could not 
doit? 

Mr. AuBERjONOis. Over the French network, I would choose not 
to do it. 

The Chairman. And you have chosen not to do it ? 

Mr. Atjberjonois. I have chosen not to do it, by agreement, and 
based on a large number of directives and evidence, which I would 
like to introduce, but it is a little bit bulky. 

The Chairman. By agreement with whom? 

Mr. Atjberjonois. There has been an agreement between the French 
Government and the United States Government to the effect that 
these facilities were going to be used for cultural programs, informa- 
tion, general information, technical, scientific, projection of America, 
how America lives. 

The Chairman. I think Senator McClellan has a question. 

Senator McClellan. That is all right. Go on. 

The Chairman. May I just develop one other question? I get in 
trouble with these names. Is it Marcelle Henry ? 

Mr. Atjberjonois. Yes, sir. She was employed by me. 

The Chairman. Did you know that it was general rumor around 
your desk that she was pro-Communist, anti-American? 

Mr. Atjberjonois. There have been so many rumors around my desk, 
sir, that I have long since forgotten them. I would like to have the 
facts. 

The Chairman. You have what? 



274 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. I have long since stopped, listening to rumors in 
the Voice of America. 

The Chairman. Well, was it general knowledge or general rumor 
around your Department that Marcelle Henry was pro-Communist 
and anti-American? 

Mr. AuBERjoNOis. No, sir. 

The Chairman. It was not? 

Mr. AuBERjoNois. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you think she was a good American ? 

Mr. AuBERPONFis. I think that what should be looked at is her 
output. 

The Chairman. Did you think she was a good American ? 

Mr. AuBERjONOis. I thought she was a goocl American transplanted. 

The Chairman. Did you think she was anti-Communist? 

Mr. AuBERjONOis. I did not hire her for that, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you think she was anti-Communist? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. I don't know if I can answer that question. 

The Chairman. You mean it made no difference to you whether 
she was anti-Communist or not ? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. I was not hiring her for that type of work, sir. 

The Chairman. So that it made no difference to you whether she 
was anti-Communist or not ? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. As long as she turned out pro-American mate- 
rial and it went on the air under my signature, that was sufficient for 
me. And if she was not cleared, she would not be employed. This 
lias always been my principle. 

The Chairman. In other words, as far as you were concerned, you 
did not concern yourself with whether she was anti-Communist or 
whether she was anti-American? 

Mr. AuBERjONOis. Oh, anti-American? 

The Chairman. You said you looked at her work. 

Mr. AtJBERjONOis. Anti-American, sir ; is a different thing. I would 
not tolerate any anti-Americans on my desk. 

The Chairman. Would you not consider a pro-Communist as anti- 
American ? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. I certainly would, but I have never felt that she 
was a pro-Communist. 

The Chairman. Well, now, you said you did not concern youreslf 
with whether she was anti-Communist. Did you or did you not feel 
that it made no difference to you whether you were hiring a pro- 
Communist or an anti-Communist to work on the French desk ? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. Of course, sir. But you said pro-Communist. 
That is different from anti- American. There are some people who 
don't have much feeling about that, and who may be hired for a 
type of work that has nothing to do with psychological or political 
warfare. 

The Chairman. I see. So you felt that you would not concern 
3^ourself with whether she was anti-Communist? 

Senator Mundt. What other functions does the Voice of America 
have besides psychological and political warfare ? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. I believe in the free world the functions of the 
Voice of America have not been well defined, and I think they need to 
be defined anew and completely and either eliminated or redefined. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 275 

Senator Mundt. I mean, I remember something about why we 
happened to have the Voice of America, and I wonder what other 
reasons occur to you for having had one, if it is not for psychological 
or political warfare or both ? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. For maintaining a link with friendly govern- 
ments and people who are in this with us. 

Senator Mundt. We have a diplomatic service for that. 

Mr. AuBERjoNOis. I believe the diplomatic service, being the diplo- 
matic service, and not being in a government by birth or choosing — I 
don't believe the diplomatic services reach the masses, sir. 

Senator Mundt. What would be our function in reaching the masses, 
unless we had some objective, like engaging in political or economic 
warfare ? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. Maybe to tell these people who we are. Because 
they still don't know. 

Senator Mundt. Would it be simply to satiate their curiosity? 

Mr. AuBERJONois. No, sir. There is a great deal of curiosity. Out 
of thousands and thousands of letters written by Frenchmen, most of 
the questions deal with things that are quite amazing. They want to 
know about us. 

Senator Mundt. It is a pretty costly procedure to spend $8,000 an 
hour satiating the curiosity of the people of France. 

Mr. AuBERjONOis. Not $8,000 an hour, sir. Two hundred and fifty 
dollars an hour. The $8,000 was for a month. 

Senator Mundt. All right. One hundred thousand dollars a year. 
That would be pretty expensive if you are going to spend $100,000 a 
year to satiate the curiosity of the people of France. 

The Chairman. There is something wrong with his figures, here. 
He just gave us $8,000 a month, for an hour a day. Not that that is 
an important matter, but I am curious to know about your figures. 

Mr. AuBERjONOis. The cost for a half -hour program is roughly, or 
was when I ws there, $137, per half hour. In other words, that half 
hour on the French network cost us about that. 

The Chairman. Well, let us get this straight. You just told us 
a while back that your wife got $250 for preparing a half-hour script ; 
that she gave that to the Houseman Corp., or the Media Corp., and 
that they in turn charged you some $1,400 or $1,500 for it. Now you 
turn around and tell us the figure is a hundred-some dollars. 

Mr. AuBERjoNois. That is a completely different type of program, 
sir. 

The Chairman. Oh. 

Mr. AuBERjoNOis. That was a production made in the studio, with 
sound effects, a sound production, a program which I believe, although 
I am not an expert 

Senator Mundt. Regardless of the price, and we will agree it is 
$100,000 per year, $8,000 for 12 months being $96,000 per year 

Mr. AuBERjoNois. Roughly; yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. I am trying to find out now from the director of 
that program what your target was, what your purpose was, other than 
psychological and political warfare. That we understand. But you 
say you were hiring Marcelle Henry for some other purpose besides 
psychological and political warfare. Now, what other purposes were 
there for spending this money abroad ? 



276 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Mr. Atjberjonois. One of the purposes in having a certain type of 
employee is to have good writers, under the supervision of editors, 
and fluent broadcasters. They are speaking to an audience that is 
accustomed to a certain type of broadcasting. 

Senator Mundt. I do not care how well they write, if we do not 
have any purpose in broadcasting what they write. I want to know 
what the purpose is. You were directing the program. You must 
have had some objective in mind. 

Mr. AuBERjoNOis. Yes, sir ; we had. 

Senator Mundt. You evidently wanted to have a certain reaction 
in France. The purpose of the program was to engage in what we 
call cold war, psychological or political warfare, to influence the minds 
of the people abroad to associate themselves with the ideas of three 
men. You agreed that that is part of the purpose of the program. 
But there were other purposes, other functions, so you hired Miss 
Henry for those other functions. I w^ant to know what they are. 

Mr. AuBERjoNois. The ability to translate, to project, what I would 
call the personality of America abroad, in words that conveyed the 
right image, or that were both attractive and appealing to the ear 
for listeners who were discovering this country. Because they are 
still discovering this country. Today we are the leaders in the world, 
and I believe we are still unknown. Whenever I go back to the coun- 
try where I was born, which is a very conservative country, I find it 
amazing that the degree of knowledge about America is still practi- 
cally nil. 

Senator Mundt. Do you think it is important that foreigners have 
the proper image of America ? 

Mr. AuBERjoNois. I think if people do not know who we are, they 
will never believe in what we do. 

Senator Mundt. And why do you want them to believe in what 
we do? 

Mr. AuBERjONOis. Because I think that the alliance of the free 
people will then be stronger. 

Senator Mundt. Is that not political and psychological warfare? 

Mr. AuBERjoNOis. You said it, sir. 

Senator Mundt. So you are right back where you started from on 
that score. You were hiring Miss Henry for something else, you said. 

Mr. AuBERJONois. No. This is the most indirect form of psycho- 
logical warfare. 

Senator Mundt. Well, I quite agree that psychological warfare has 
to be indirect. But you said it did not make any difference whether 
a person was pro-American or anti-American 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. I don't believe I said it made no difference. But, 
naturally, you cannot do this type of propaganda unless you are 
pro-American. 

Senator Mundt. Did you ever hear that Miss Henry had referred 
to your fellow citizens over here as "dirty Americans" ? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. Yes ; I heard one version 

Senator Mundt. Tell us about that. 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. Of the testimony. 

Sir, I was not in charge of the French desk, I believe 

Senator Mundt. Tell us about your knowledge of her allegation 
that you and I and the rest of us are dirty Americans. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 277 

Mr. AuBERjoNOis. That would include me, sir, because I am very 
proud of my citizenship. 

Senator Mundt. Yes. She included you when she spoke of dirty 
Americans. 

Mr. AuBERjoNOis. And I would be the first to be hurt. 

Senator Mundt. How does that demonstrate a degree of pro-Amer- 
icanism in your mind ? 

Mr. AuBERjoNois. I do not believe that that statement was correctly 
interpreted, sir, or made. 

Senator Mundt. How would you interpret the words "dirty 
American" ? 

Mr. AUBERJONOIS. I would consider it as a personal insult to me. 

Senator Mundt. She did not say that you were a dirty American. 
She referred to "dirty Americans." 

Mr. AuBERjONOis. She never said that to me, sir, and I have never 
had any proof that she said it, and I don't know about this. I have 
been called a "dirty American" many times. 

Senator Mundt. If, in fact, you knew that she said it, would you 
have considered that justification for removing her from her position? 

Mr. AuBERjONOis. Of course. At once. Immediately. 

Senator Mundt. In other words, you are not sure whether she said 
it or not? 

Mr. AuBERjoNois. No. * 

The Chair:man. Let me give you something that she did say and see 
if you think this indicates anticommunism or procommunism. You 
are talking about Marcelle Henry. You said you hired her on the 
basis of the work. Here is some of her work. Let me quote from 
one of the broadcasts. 

First, let me ask you: Is it correct that each week you had a 
weekly book-review feature ? The purpose of that was to inform the 
French about American cultural life ? Is that correct ? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. Yes ; that was a part of the cultural series. 

The Chairman. You selected a book which would give the French 
people a correct picture of American life? 

Mr. Auberjonois. That is right. 

The Chairman. Now, we have one of the broadcasts prepared by 
Marcelle Henry. Let me read from it. She had picked one of Miss 
Ferber's books and she was referring to Miss Ferber and she said : 

She knows the Texans well, whatever the Texans may say to the contrary. 
Since 1939 she has driven through the S^ate, flown over it by plane, stopped over 
at some of the ranches, spoken to Texans in their homes, and thus she gave shape 
to her imagination of those she would describe. 

Then she goes on and says : 

She describes the old Texan group of parvenus, hard-faced men, and the bour- 
bon they drink by the gallon, the women nitwits who talk to say practically 
nothing. 

This was for the purpose of giving the French a picture of American 
life. Do you think that that was giving them an accurate picture, and 
do you think we were justified in spending money to give that type of 
picture ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. Was that the whole script? 

The Chairman. Pardon ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. That was not the whole script. 



278 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

The Chairman. That was not the whole script. 

Mr. AuBERjoNOis. That was quoting maybe Edna Ferber. I would 
like to introduce the whole script as an exhibit. 

The Chairman. We will read the whole script, then. We will read 
the whole script and see if there is anything that corrects that. It 
says: 

If you are a Texan, you will curse the book. If you live elsewhere in the 
United States, you will accept Giant as a great book. In America one says the 
word "Texas," and one sees big, which made a satirist say that in Texas even 
dwarfs are 6 feet tall. Texas is a land of oil wells and huge ranches, a land of 
recent wealth, which hasn't had time to give birth to an elite, according to Miss 
Ferber. Miss Ferber shows the abuses and the faults of the Texans, but she 
responds to their vitality. She knows them well, whatever the Texans may say 
to the contrary. Since 1939 she has driven through the State, flown over it by 
plane, stopped over at some of the ranches, spoken to Texans in their homes, and 
thus she gave shape in her imagination to those she would describe. 

Who are these people? The protagonists are a young couple, the husband a 
wealthy cattle breeder, the wife a Virginia girl, delicate and well bred, intelligent 
and collected, who, once she is transplanted into her new environment, Texas, 
cannot get used to its daily extravagances. It is through her eyes that Miss 
Ferber presents an objection to the whole Texan group of parvenus, hard-faced 
men, and the bourbon they drink by the gallon, the women nitwits who talk to 
say practically nothing. But there are also the Mexican peons, who work in the 
ranclies and the homes as servants, and whose simple, harsh, and difficult life 
Edna Ferber cannot forget. 

Now, do you think that is a sort of program that should be beamed 
to the French, to give a picture of American life? 

Mr. AuBERjONois. Sir, I think that you have a shortened version 
of that script. That is why I have introduced 

Tlie Chairman. You say this is not the entire script? 

Mr, AuBERjoNois. I don't think so, sir. I think there was a word 
of caution to a foreign audience. 

The Chairman. I read that. "If you are a Texan, you will curse 
the book. If you live elsewhere in the United States, you will accept 
Giant as a great book." Was that the word of caution ? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. No, sir. 

The Chairman. You mean there was another word of caution ? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. I think there were several more. 

The Chairman. Marcelle Henry has been discharged under the 
loyalty program. Is that correct ? 

]Mr. AuBERJONOis. I have absolutely no knowledge of that, sir. 

Mr. CoHN. We have received information from the Personnel 
Director at the Voice of America that following an investigation she 
has been ordered terminated, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. But for the 3 years that you were there, you felt 
that she was the type of employee you wanted working there? 

Mr. AUBERJONOIS. Was that a loyalty investigation, sir? 

The Chairman. I am asking you the question : For the 3 years 
that you were there, did you consider her the type of individual you 
would want working on that desk ? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You did. 

You asked a question, I am not sure if I can answer it. I assume 
that was an investigation under the loyalty-security program. 

Mr. CoHN. It is under the loyalty-security program. I don't know 
the exact program. There was an investigation, and she was 
terminated. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 279 

Mr. AuBERjONOis. Loyalty, or security ? 

Mr. CoHN. Well, do you know ? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. I wouldn't know, 

Mr. CoiiN. We have received information that because of an inves- 
tigation under the security-loyalty program, she has been ordered 
terminated. We have requested in that and other cases the exact 
nature of the file information, and of course, under the Executive 
order still in effect, we have not been afforded that information. 
We have been afforded merely the conclusion. 

Senator Mundt. May I inquire of the witness why he raised the 
question whether it is loyalty or security ? 

Do you think she w^ould be suitable to work for you if she had failed 
one and not the other ? 

Mr, AuBERJONOis. No, sir ; it was for the record. 

Senator Mundt. What was your purpose in raising the question? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. Because I still believe that there would be a 
difference between the two. 

Senator Mundt. Would you hire her if she were a loyalty risk? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt, Would you hire her if she were a security risk ? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. No; I could do neither. Even if I wanted to, 
I couldn't hire them. 

Senator Mundt, I still do not see why j^ou raised the question. 

Mr, AuBERJONOis, Let's say for the protection of the individual. 

The Chairman, This program will be marked as an exhibit, and in 
view of the question raised by the witness as to whether or not w^e read 
the important meat of this into the record, if any of the press cares 
to have this now they are welcome to it. That is the entire broadcast. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 22" and may 
be found in the files of the subcommittee.) 

Mr. Migdal. Mr. Chairman, may I say with respect to that exhibit, 
which we planned to introduce, that at tkat time Mr, Auberjonois was 
neither supervising nor had any connection with the French desk 
whatever. 

The question had been raised at the closed hearing in a hypothetical 
way, and we therefore got the script to study it. But when that script 
was produced, Mr. Auberjonois had no connection whatever with the 
French desk. He had been away from the French desk, I believe, 
for — May I have the date on that script, please ? 

The Chairman. Mr. Auberjonois, do you claim that this particular 
employee changed, had any sudden change ? Or was she the same type 
of employee, as far as you know, for the 3 years she was working for 
3^ou, as she was when she was finally discharged ? 

Strike the question. 

Wlien were you promoted from the French desk ? 

Mr. Auberjonois, Eemoved and promoted, you mean? I asked 
to leave 

The Chairman, When? Just tell us when. 

Mr. Auberjonois, I finally got my wish in May 1952, 

The Chairman. May of 1952. 

Mr, Auberjonois. I applied for a transfer in '50 or '51, 

The Chairman, What was the date of this broadcast? Is there any 
date on that broadcast? Do you know the date of the broadcast? 

I have a pencil notation on here, December 2, 1952. 



280 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Mr. MiGDAL. That may be correct, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you know what date ? 

Mr. MiGDAL. No ; but I was going to say at least 6 months after, and 
that would bear it out. 

The Chairman. I am going to have marked as an exhibit and put in 
the record a memorandum dated May 29, 1951, to Mr. Michael Kies 
from Fernand Auberjonois, subject: Packaged Shows. 

Attached please find background material on Messrs. Michel Bernheim and 
Harry S. Franklin who have been working with John Houseman on the Holly- 
wood packaged shows. Houseman vouches for both of them. 

Also attached a day-by-day a<^count of Media Productions negotiations with 
MPAA representatives until the "break." 

Attachment: As stated. 

Carbon copy : A. Puhan. 

Mr. MiGDAL. May we see that ? 

The Chairman. You may see that. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 23", and may 
be found in the files of the subcommittee.) 

The Chairman. Any further questions ? 

Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire a little 
further regarding the six package programs that were secured from 
the Media company. 

You were on the Frencli desk at that time ; were you ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. Yes, sir. 

Senator McClellan. It was your responsibility to secure those 
programs ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. Not to contract, sir ; no. 

Senator McClellan. Not to contract. 

Mr. Auberjonois. No ; to supervise editorially. 

Senator McClellan. Well; was Mr. Michael Ries the one who 
secured the contract ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. Mr. Ross and Mr. Ries. 

Senator McClellan. Who? 

Mr. Auberjonois. Mr. Robert Ross and Mr. Michael Ries. I think 
that is spelled R-i-e-s. 

Senator McClellan. Was Mr. Ries your superior ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. No. It was a completely different section, sir. 

Senator McClellan. Was it a different section in March 1951? 

Mr. Auberjonois. Yes, sir. 

Senator McClellan. A different section? 

Mr. Auberjonois. A different section ; yes, sir. 

Senator McClellan. Did you have any occasion to report to him 
or make recommendations to him at that time, as your superior? 

Mr. Auberjonois. I could make only rather vague recommenda- 
tions. 

Senator McClellan. Did you make such recommendations ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. I wouldn't call them recommendations. I was 
asked for my advice, and I gave it, sir. 

Senator McClellan. You were asked for advice regarding the six 
package programs with respect to programs for the French desk? 

Mr. Auberjonois. On editorial matters ; yes, sir. 

Senator McClellan. Sir ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. On the contents of the programs. 

Senator McClellan. On the contents of the programs? 

Mr. Auberjonois. Yes, sir. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 281 

Senator McClellan. Did you submit a memorandum in response 
to that request to Mr. Ries ? 

Mr. AuBERjONOis. I believe that I may have said at that time that 
Media, or Mr. Houseman, was, to my mind, the best producer available. 

Senator McClellan. Well, did you submit a recommendation of spe- 
cific programs that you recommended be secured ; that is, particular 
scripts that you wanted, or that you recommended, on different 
subjects? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. Yes; I think that there was an outline, later on, 
after the contract was signed. 

Senator McClellan. After the contract was signed ? 

Mr. Atjberjonois. I believe so, sir. 

Senator McClellan. When was the contract signed ? 

Mr. Atjberjonois. I don't know, sir. I don't have the date. 

Senator McClellan. Well, I will ask you specifically. Do you 
recall that on March 26, 1951, you submitted a memorandum to Mr. 
Ries in which you outlined six specific programs on different subjects 
that you recommended? 

Mr. Auberjonois. I may have, sir; yes. 

Senator McClellan. Well, to refresh your memory, I will ask you 
to look at this memorandum of that date, and identify it and state 
whether or not you recognize it, and if it is yours. 

Mr. Auberjonois. Yes. That is the third series, sir. 

Senator McClellan. All right. That is the third series? 

Mr. Auberjonois. Yes; that is right. 

Senator McClellan. You had two series prior to that time ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. Yes, sir. 

Senator McClellan. Did you submit recommendations with ref- 
erence to those ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. I don't believe the other ones were done in the 
same manner. Because the first one was done the basis of scripts. 

Senator McClellan. Well; is this the series that was done by the 
Media company ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. This one here, sir? Yes, sir. 

Senator McClellan. That is the one ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. That is the one that was canceled. 

Senator McClellan. You identify that, do you? 

Mr. Auberjonois. Yes, sir. 

Senator McClellan. You say this one was canceled. Was it can- 
celed before or after the contract was made? 

Mr. Auberjonois. After, sir. 

Senator McClellan. After it was made ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. Yes, sir. 

Senator McClellan. Do any of these six subjects — I will name 
them— Hollywood at Work; that is No. 1 that you listed; (2) Holly- 
wood at Play; (3) San Francisco; (4) San Francisco; (5) Indians 
in Colorado; (6) The Drive by Night. Were any of those scripts 
produced and used ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. No ; because I believe that the Hollywood series 
was interrupted because of the Charlie Chaplin incident. 

Senator McClellan. None of these, then, referred to in this memo- 
randum to you? 

Mr. Auberjonois. I don't believe they were prepared. I don't 
know. I never saw the material. 



282 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Senator McClellan. Were none of them prepared ? 

Mr. AuBERjONOis. That would have to be checked with the people 
who now have the files, sir, because I never had them. But I think 
Mr. Bauer— — 

Senator McClellan. I have what purports to be a script here that 
rather intrigues me. Apparently it was prepared in response to 
your recommendation No. 6, The Drive by Night. You go on to say, 
there, in describing what that should be : 

The Drive by Night, A Saga of American Trucking and Long-Distance Hauling 
Over the Highways. Cross-country truck service. Try and find a French- 
speaking driver for interview. Record sound on the highways. Narrative 
treatment. 

I find in the file what aj)pears to be possibly a response to that rec- 
ommendation and request of yours, entitled "Trucking Notes." Are 
you familiar with it? 

Mr. AuBERjoNOis. I believe that was only background material. 
No script was produced. 

Senator McClellan. Is that what you call background material 
for this particular program ? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. This was not a script, sir. 

Senator McClellan. What is that ? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. We would not accept this as a script. 

Senator McClallan. Wliat is that ? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. I believe these were suggestions. 

Senator McClellan. By whom ? 

Mr. AuBERjoNOis. I don't know. I remember very vaguely only 
that this was a first approach by a man who had had experience • 

Senator McClellan. What I want to ascertain, frankly, was that a 
sample of the programs and scripts that you got as a result of these 
requests ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. No, sir. 

Senator McClellan. It is not a sample? 

Mr. Altberjonois. It is not a sample. 

Senator McClellan. How did it happen to be in the file ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. I don't know, because I never got the file. 

Senator McClellan. Who gets the file ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. The Transcribed Programs Section, or Overseas 
Services Section, sir. 

Senator McClellan. Is that an example of what you use as back- 
ground material for those you employ to prepare the scripts? 

Mr. Auberjonois, No, sir. 

Senator McClellan. It is not? I just wonder for what purpose 
that is there. Can you tell me ? It was found in the files, and appar- 
ently it was attached to this memorandum when it was found and 
apparently is in response to it. So I just wanted to ask you what you 
know about it. 

Mr. Auberjonois. This is not a script, and I believe that only the 
producer could say what it was. I myself can only say that this is 
not a script. 

Senator McClellan. Let me ask you one other question. 

Mr. Auberjonois. It was done on the coast. I don't know. 

The Chairman. Who was paid for this ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. I hope nobody got paid for it. 

Senator McClellan. Let me ask you 1 or 2 other questions. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 283 

The Chairman, Do you think this correctly pictures American life ? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. It was not a script, and I can guarantee it would 
not have come under my supervision. 

Senator McClellan. It is very much in line with the Texas article 
about the Texas people, and it is just that ridiculous. You have one 
sample where it was broadcast about Texas, and here you have a ref- 
erence to truckdrivers and some other people. Now, it is just about 
as silly. 

Mr. Atjberjonois. I had nothing to do with it, and so I really can't 
answer the question. 

Senator McCleLlan. Now, follow me for just a moment, if you 
had nothing to do with it. In this memorandum of March 26, 1951, 1 
listed the six particular character scripts that you requested, entitled, 
you say in No. 1. 

Hollywood at Work, A Sound Picture of Hollywood Outside of the Studios. 
That is how people live there, what the streets look and sound like. An attempt 
should be made to deglamorize the movie capital and interview its little people, 
the many people connected with industry, where do these people go for their 
entertainment and so on. 

That is No. 1. 

Your description of No. 2 is — 

Hollywood at Play, a more superficial, a more glamorous sound picture of 
Hollywood, but try and avoid the cliches, French-language interviews with stars 
or famous nightclubs. 

No. 3. San Francisco, the French colony. Part 1 : San Francisco proper with 
emphasis on writers, artists, etc. ; trip through the City of Paris. 

Do you know what the City of Paris is ? 

Mr. AuBERjoNOis. Absolutely. It is one of the things the French 
are proudest of, strangely enough. 

Senator McClellan. You wanted to convey to them what was in 
Hollywood ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. No, San Francisco ; I believe it is an institution. 

Senator McClellan (reading) : 

America's only department store run like a French business. Verdier family. 
Part 2. The winegrowers — how they live. Bring microphone in a cellar. In- 
terview oldtimers. 

I am reading this now, and is that the kind of programs that have 
been produced and broadcast, and that the American people are pay- 
ing for with their tax money ? Is that a symbol of it ^ 

Mr. Auberjonois. These are some of the programs. 

Senator McClellan. Now, here are six that you are requesting. 
All six are along that line ; are they not ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. Maybe there were requests for these programs 
and they should be heard, and they should be listed. 

Senator McClellan. If someone else requested it, it is your recom- 
mendation. What I am trying to determine here for the record. Is 
that a fair sample of the character of broadcasts that we have been 
paying for at the rate of about $1,500 a broadcast in presenting Amer- 
ican life abroad? 

Mr. Auberjonois. That is not a sample of what has been broad- 
cast. 

Senator McClellan. Was this a change from the original program ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. This was a packaged program to go directly to 
stations overseas. These are not the programs that were broadcast 
over the facilities of the Voice. 



284 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Senator McClellan. These were things we were sending over there 
to have broadcast; were they not? This is a part of the Voice of 
America program; is it not? What was it going to be used for, if 
not the Voice of America ? 

Mr. AuBERjONOis. Should we answer the questions of the French 
people about America ? That would be a question. 

Senator McClellan. It is not whether the French wanted it. I do 
not know that we are obligated to do everything the French want. Blit 
the question is, Is this a fair sample of the character of films that 
you were purchasing for us in the Voice of America ? 

Mr. AuBERjONOis. I haven't heard them, sir. 

Senator McClellan. Well, this is what you recommended. 

Mr. AuBERjONOis. They may have been very good on the basis of 
that sketch he outlined. 

Senator McCleliwvn. Were the other two series something com- 
parable to this? 

Mr. AuBEEjONOis. No, they had probably more cultural material as 
far as Broadway was concerned, and it was all done in the theaters, 
and others were plays, but there is a need, and there are requests 
for this type of material by foreign stations. 

Senator McClellan. Let me ask you this : What could be gained 
by broadcasting scripts along that line to a foreign country? How 
would it serve American interests, and how would it fight com- 
munism ? 

Mr. AUBERJONOIS. Maybe it would get an audience, and we can then 
tack onto it the political message. 

Senator McClellan. A sideshow or carnival of some kind can get 
an audience. 1 am talking of something of merit. 

Mr. AuBERjoNois. i have never had a sideshow. 

Senator McClellan. To show America in its proper light. That 
is all. 

The Chairman. I wonder if you would hand me that script a 
moment, please? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. It was not the script, sir. 

The Chairman. How much was paid for this material that appar- 
ently was prepared in answer to your request No. 6, The Drive by 
Night? Do you know who prepared it and how much was paid for 
that? 

Mr. AUBERJONOIS. I don't think I remember anything about it, sir. 

The Chairman. Somebody was paid for it. 

Mr. AuBERjONOis. I know this is not a script. 

The Chairman. Well, it is an outline, then. 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. If somebody claimed money for it 

Senator Jackson. It looks like it is background for a script. 

Mr. AUBERJONOIS. This is not the type of show I outlined at all, 
anyway. 

The Chairman. Now, someone is being paid taxpayers' money to 
prepare this. Do you think this is an accurate description of Ameri- 
can womanhood? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. I have crossed the country in trucks and I 
have lived at night on tiie highways of America, and I believe 
there is a beautiful show to be done there, strangely enough. This 
country is more than just a political idea. It has all kinds of aspects 
that are extremely moving and boiling. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 285 

The Chairman. This is a big vulgar 

Mr, AuBERjONOis. I don't mean this script, sir. 

The Chairman. I think it is something that the Voice obtained, and 
there are a few paragraphs that should be in the record. I would like 
to know^ how much was paid for this. For example, this is attached 
to your memorandum, saying you wanted a bit on truck driving. 

Mr. AuBEKJONOis. I did not attach it, sir. 

The Chairman (reading) : 

At times, passing througli a town, a big-assed female dish wiggles across 
the truck's path and the truckei- whistles and waves, and for some reason 
the dames always go for the truckers. The smile goes out, the hand waves. 

This is setting up something for a show ; is it not ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. No, sir; this is not a script, and it would not 
have gone on the air and would not have been approved. 

The Chairman. Why on God's earth do you feel justified in pay- 
ing for this kind of tripe ? Do you think this describes America, and 
do you think this fights communism i Is there any conceivable rea- 
son for spending taxpayers' money on this sort of thing? 

Mr. Auberjonois. I have never approved it, sir. I would like to 
introduce my own books about America as evidence of what I feel 
should be written about America. 

The Chairman. But you hired someone to produce this? 

Mr. Auberjonois. No, I did not, sir. The contractor may have, 
but this never came back in the form of a show to the Voice of 
America. If somebody has put it in as a script, then it is a very 
serious mistake. 

The Chairman. It never came back because you were forced to 
cancel the contract. 

Mr. Auberjonois. Because I never would have accepted it. 

The Chairman. You were forced to cancel it by the Hollywood 
Coordinating Conmiittee, who said that Communist Party lines were 
producing it and otherwise jow would be paying for this ; would you 
not? 

Mr. Auberjonois. Never. 

The Chairman. The figure was $1,500 a show ; was it not? 

Mr. Auberjonois. I w^ould never have bought this. 

The Chairman. Then you mean that you personally examined 
each package before it was paid for? 

Mr. Auberjonois. I would have listened to the tape before it was 
put on records, and the raw material. 

Tlie Chapman. Now, we are getting down to something, which 
we were trying to get at this morning. 

You mean that you examined each package and approved it for 
the Media Corp. before it was paid for? Did you— Mr. Counsel, 
please. The rule here is that a witness can consult with counsel 
whenever he cares to, but counsel will not try to coach the witness. 
Whenever the witness thinks he needs your lielp, he will ask for it, 
and if I find counsel coaching the witness again, he will be removed 
from the room. 

Now, will you try to answer the question? The question is: After 
the contract was made with Media, did you examine each package, 
listen to the play before the money was paid, the $1,500 was paid for 
the package ? 



286 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. Yes, sir, I listened to the shows. 

The Chairman. Each one? 

Mr. AuBERJONois. And suggested corrections. 

The Chairman. Each one before it was paid for ? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. On the first two series, and not on the third. 

The Chairman. The first two series, did you listen to each show 
before it was paid for, and approved it ? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. I think I listened, and approved the content, 
the editorial content, the scripts. 

The Chairman. AVhat did you not approve ? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. I did not have to approve or disapprove it, or 
the cost of the program. 

The Chairman. Is it your testimony now under oath that you 
listened to all of the shows produced by Media, and that you per- 
sonally approved of the contract of the show before it was paid for. 
Is that your testimony? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. Maybe not all, sir. I don't remember the first 
series exactly how it was done. 

The Chairman. Let us go to the second series. Did you listen to 
all in the second series ? 

Mr. AuBERjoNois. Yes, sir ; I listened to all of the second series. 

The Chairman. Did you approve of all of those in the second series ? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. I approved them ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Actually you wrote most of them ; did you not ? 

Mr. AuBERjONOis. No, sir. 

The Chairman. You helped write them ; did you not ? 

Mr. AuBERjONOis. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Did not your w4fe write them, and did not you tes- 
tify that you helped write them, and did not she get paid for writing 
them ? 

ISIr. AuBERJONOis. Yes, sir. 

Tlie Chairman. She got }Miid from Housing; is that correct? 

Mr. AuBERjONOis. Well, I have given the committee all of the in- 
formation about that, sir. 

The Chairman. You say you examined the second series, and there 
is no occasion to examine it because you said your wife wrote the 
script, and you helped her write them, and I am talking about the 
scripts that your wife did not write. Did you examine those? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. I was talking about the production because once 
the script has been done, there is an examination of the product during 
production. 

The Chairman. But in any event, your testimony is that the scripts 
or package would not be paid for unless you first approved it. That 
i s despite the contract. Is that your testimony ? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. That they would not be paid for ? 

The Chairman. Yes ; unless you approved it. 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. But I believe if they were under contract, they 
had to be paid for. 

The Chairman. All right. I just asked you about this script, and 
you said that this would not be paid for unless you approved it. 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. This was not a script, sir. I am sure it was not. 

The Chairman. It was the beginning of something. 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. It may have been the beginning of something, 
but not something that I approved. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 287 

The Chairman. If it were reduced to script form, you just got 
through telliug us it could not be paid for unless you approved it. 

Mr. AtiBERJONOis. That would never have been put in script foi'm 
in that fashion, sir. That is all I can say. 

Senator Jacksox. Right at that ])oint, I notice or I note that the 
memorandum to which the notes were attached refers to the fact that 
one of the subjects of interest for the French audience was entitled, 
under your point No. 6, "The Drive by Night, the Saga of American 
Trucking and Long-Distance Hauling Over Highways." 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. That is right. 

Senator Jackson. You do not mean to say that you did not know 
about these notes when your own memo in the file here that was ad- 
dressed to you from ]Mr. Reece, I believe, refers to that very thing. 

Mr. AuBEEjONOis. This was the program I was outlining, sir. 

Senator Jackson. This is from you to Mr. Reece, and is it not logical 
that when you referred to it in your memo as you have here on item 6, 
you referred to the — 

Drive by Night, the Saga of American Trucking and Long-Distance Hauling 
Over the Highways, cross country truck service, try to find a French speaking 
driver for interview, record sound on the highways, narrative statement. 

Now, you do not mean to say that the memo attached — you say it 
is not a script, you say it is trucking notes, and I assume it is not a 
script, and you do not mean to say you did not know about those 
trucking notes? 

Mr. AuBERJONois. I knew they were notes that had been prepared 
for background, but no script. 

Senator Jackson. I understand that, but you knew that these notes 
were in there. 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. They would not have been used. 

Senator Jackson. I am not asking that question. Just be fair now 
and answer this question : You knew these trucking notes were in the 
file. You can answer that yes or no. I do not care whether you were 
going to use them or not use them. I am just trying to find out about 
this document. 

Mr. AuBERjONois. Well, I must say that I don't remember where 
they came from, and how they were going to be used. 

Senator Jackson. But you knew they were there ? 

Mr. Atjber JONois. I had seen them, yes, sir. 

Senator Jackson. "VSHien did you see them ? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. I think I saw them about the time the program 
was canceled. 

Senator Jackson. When was the program canceled ? 

Mr. AuBERjoNois. I can't remember the date. It must have been 
the summer of 1951. 

Senator Jackson. The date of your memo is March 26, 1951, if that 
will help refresh your recollection. 

Mr. AuBERJONois. IMarch 26, did you say, 1951 ? 

Senator Jackson. Your memo to Mr. Reece is March 26, 1951, and 
that is the memorandum that refers, among other things, to the last 
item on the agenda, No. 6, The Drive by Night. 

Mr. Attberjonois. There again I have not the file of any of this. 
As far as I know, that series, sir, was never actually completed or done. 

29708 — 53— pt. 4 5 



288 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Senator Jackson. I understand that, because apparently the files 
disclose that no such script was used in connection with the broadcast, 
but what I am getting at is that you knew those notes were in there, 
and did you not take the trouble to see who prepared it to put it in a 
Government file ? 

Mr. AuBERjoNois. No, because I knew they were not my files. 

Senator Jackson. Well, I know, but you referred to that specifically 
in your memorandum. 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. That was written before, sir. 

Senator Jackson. You followed up on this, I take it^ and you knew 
those notes were in there, and you just got through testifying that you 
found out after this memorandum had been written that the notes had 
been made on this subject, is that not right % 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. That is right, but that would never have con- 
stituted a program for me. 

Senator Jackson. But you knew the notes were there, and did you 
look at the notes ? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. I glanced at them and I didn't pay much atten- 
tion to them. 

Senator Jackson. How long after this memorandum of March 26, 
1951, did you look at the notes? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. I don't recall that at all, sir. They were not sent 
to me in any way. 

Senator Jackson. Wliere did you read the notes? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. I must have seen them in the office of the Over- 
seas Services Section. 

Senator Jackson. And when you 

Mr. AuBERjONOis. The only person who could answer that abso- 
lutely would be Mr. Reece or Mr. Ross, I think. 

Senator Jackson. Mr. who ? 

Mr. AuBERjONOis. Mr. Ross, or Mr. Reece, if they were still there. 

Senator Jackson. Wlien you read the notes, did you not bother to 
inquire who was the person who had written the notes ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. I may have been told, but I have forgotten. 

Senator Jackson. Well, the Government paid for this. 

Mr. Auberjonois. I didn't know that. 

Senator Jackson. Well, after all, this was a part of the suggested 
outline of subjects of interest for your French audience? 

Mr. Auberjonois. No, the series had been canceled already when 
all of this was received. 

Senator Jackson. I understand that, but there are six items that 
you listed, the subjects of interest, and this is your own memo. 

Mr. Auberjonois. Tliat is right. 

Senator Jackson. For the French audience, and I am only con- 
cerning myself now with No. 6 on the agenda, The Drive by Night. 

I would like to find out just how it would be that you did not follow 
through on these notes and to find out just how such stuff would be 
allowed to get into the file inasmuch as you were the one that suggested 
these 6 topics, including this 1 on trucking. 

Mr. Auberjonois. Well, I believe that after the Hollywood series 
was interrupted, Media sent all of the material that had been pre- 
pared, or they claimed had been prepared directly to the files of the 
Overseas Services Section. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 289 

Senator Jackson. This probably came from Media, then? 

Mr. AuBERjoNois. Yes. 

Senator Jackson. These notes on trucking, did they ? 

Mr. AuBERjONOis, All relations between Media and the Overseas 
Services Section, there was no correspondence between me and them. 

Senator Jackson. I mean these notes on trucking, the script. 

Mr. AuBERjONOis. That didn't come from the Voice. 

Senator Jackson. That came from Media ? 

Mr. AuBERjONOis. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jackson. How much did we pay Media for it? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. I don't know. 

Senator Jackson. Who could testify as to how much we paid Media 
for these trucking notes ? 

Mr. AUBERJONOIS. I am sure that the people who signed the contract 
or closed the contract could testify as to that. 

The Chairman. You were in charge of the desk, and do you know 
whether Media was paid something for the series 3 covering the memo- 
randum that you submitted ? Do you know whether they were paid 
when the contract was broken ? 

Mr. AuBERjONOis. I believe they claimed payment and there was 
correspondence between Mr. D'Allessandro and the Administrative 
Services. 

The Chairman. Do you know what they were paid ? 

Mr. AUBERJONOIS. I think they were paid, but I don't know how 
much. 

The Chairman. You know they were paid something? 

Mr. AuBERjONOis. They were paid something, I think. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you this, then, for this preliminary 
research on trucking, they were paid a total of $241.50. In other 
words, for this material on trucking, they were paid $241.50, split up 
as follows: Preliminary research, $100. 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. Did I sign that? 

The Chairman. Travel $50. Overhead and profit, $31.50. 

Mr. AuBERjoNOis. These were the things that never came to my 
desk, sir, because this was done through an administrative section 
which discussed contracts with the contractors. 

The Chairman. Now, look, you were the head of the desk, and you 
asked that certain work be done, and you found the contract was 
broken, and did you not ever interest yourself in finding out how much 
this broken contract had cost you ? Did you not want to know what 
they had produced for it? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. It was not my budget, sir. It was the Overseas 
Services Section, a separate budget which had nothing to do with the 
French budget. 

The Chairman. I have no further questions of the witness. 

Senator McClellan. Your memorandum recommending or request- 
ing these specific programs, scrij^ts on subjects that had been discussed, 
was dated, I believe, March 21, 1951 ; is that correct? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. For the third series. 

Senator McClellan. For the third series. 

Mr. AUBERJONOIS. Yes, sir. 

Senator McClellan. Well, there appears in the files here on Sep- 
tember 13, 1951, there appears a statement from Media for a total of 



290 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

$1,676.58. It is an itemized statement and it includes program No. 5, 
Trucking, and the first item is "Preliminary research, $100." "Field 
recording, 6 hours, $60." Travel, $50. Overhead and profit, $31.50. 
That makes a total of $241.50 that the Voice of America was billed for 
on a program listed as No. 5, Trucking, and that seems to be the script 
of background material we have before us. That was a total cost of 
$241.50. 

Now, notwithstanding the contract may have been canceled and the 
material not used, do you know wliether this trucking program No. 5 
here is in response to your memorandum and if the Voice of America 
paid this bill after the contract was canceled? 

Mr. AuBERJONois. Could I see the document, sir ? 

Senator McClellan. Yes, you can look at it. 

Mr. AuBERjoNOis. This is precisely the type of document which I 
did not see. 

Senator McClellan. Well, that would indicate that later Media Co. 
undertook to produce a program as you had requested on trucking, 
and then it later submitted a bill to the Voice of America, as I have 
outlined. I guess we can find out wliether that bill was paid, but 
apparently it indicates that the Government paid $241, the Voice of 
America, for this — I would not call it a script. I am just trying to 
find out whether you know. 

Mr. AuBERJONois. I don't know, sir. 

Senator McClellan. You are familiar, I assume, with Media's 
stationery. That statement appears on Media's stationery; does it 
not ? 

Mr. AuBERjONOis. That is correct. I would like to know who it is 
addressed to. 

Senator McClellan. And it appears to have been in the file. 

Mr. Auberjonois. I don't know who it is addressed to. 

Senator McCleli^n. All I am trying to establish is whether this is 
the kind of material we have been buying and paying for, and 
apparently we can find somewhere from the record whether the bill 
was paid. But apparently Media submitted a bill for this trucking 
material that we have had on exhibit here, some 4 or 5 months after 
you wrote your memorandum requesting that character of a program. 

Mr. Auberjonois. I believe that all I saw, sir, was 

Senator McClellan. I am not saying you ever saw it. I am saying 
that apjiarently then from these documents Media did go to work, to 
undertake to prepare that kind of a script. Later, when the contract 
was canceled, they submitted a bill for 2 works they had already done 
on it, which includes $100 for apparently this background script that 
we have now. That is the way it appears to me as a member of the 
committee, and does it not appear to you to be the same way ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. What I believe, sir, is that when the contract 
was terminated. Media put in a claim for work already done. 

Senator McClellan. For work already done. 

Mr. Auberjonois. That is right. 

Senator McClellan. And this apparently is the claim that it put 
in for the work it did on these programs. 

Mr. Auberjonois. I assume so. 

Senator McClellan. That is the way it appears, 

Mr. Auberjonois. But that would not be under my responsibility. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAIVI 291 

Senator McClellan. I did not say it was under you. I am just 
pointing out that that is the kind of material, script, and background 
we were getting from Media to be used on this broadcast. 

The Chairman. May I say for the benefit of the Senator I have a 
document, handed to me by the staff now, dated September 20, 1951, 
the bill which the Senator has been questioning the witness on, dated 
September 15, and it mentions the work for the preliminary work in 
regard to the trucking program, and the document reads as follows : 

Consultation with Mr. Auberjonoi.s, tbe Trench unit. We have come to the 
following conclusions about the above-listed claim. 

They are referring to the claim for the No. 5 ; the claim for the tape 
recording and research is justified. 

Mr. AuBERjoxois. The tape recording; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And the research. 

Does this refresh your recollection? This document says that, in 
consultation with you, it was decided that the $100 for the research 
and the tape recording was justified, and so you O. K.'d the bill your- 
self; is that correct? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. No, sir; I O. K.'d the tape recording, but I don't 
remember O. K.'ing any research. 

The Chairman. Let me read it to you. [Reading:] 
The claim for the tape recording and the research is justified. 

A copy of this went to Puhan, Evans, yourself, and Gaines. In other 
words, a week after this bill is submitted, we find that they consulted 
with you ; documents submitted to you showed that you approved the 
payment for this research. Did you or did you not ? 

iilr. AuBERjONOis. I would like first to establish whether my ap- 
proval was needed, and, secondlj^, whether that was the only material 
that was there. I remember the tape and I remember this document, 
but I did not consider that research. 

The Chairman. Do you know whether you approved that payment ? 
You just got through telling Senator McClellan this was not your 
department, and you did not know the claim had been made, and we 
now find that you, sir, were the man who approved payment. Is that 
correct or is it incorrect ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. I maintain that I did not have to approve or 
disapprove any of these bills, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you, whether you had to or not? Did you 
approve payment ? 

llr. Auberjonois. I may have. 

The Chairman. You do not know ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. No; I don't remember, but I know that my 
approval was not needed. 

The Chairman. Do you remember whether you had to make a 
finding whether the claim was justified, using the language of the 
document ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. I may have, but I would like to look at the 
whole background of the operation. 

The Chairman. Is 'it your testimony that you do not remember? 

Mr. Auberjonois. I would really like to look over the whole back- 
ground of the operation of the package program in order to find out 
where exactly my responsibilities began and when they ended, sir. 



292 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

The Chairman. Sir, one of the things this committee must do is 
finally to render a report. The testimony is very conflicting, and 
we must pass upon the credibility of every witness, and we must 
determine whether you are trying to tell us the truth or not. 

Mr. AuBERjoNOis. I am trying to, sir. 

The Chairman. A few minutes ago you told me, and you told 
Senator McClellan, that this was not your department, and we now 
produce a document which shows on its face that you were the man 
who determined whether this should be paid or not. 

I now ask you, Do you or do you not remember having done that? 
You should remember about your friend Houseman, for whom your 
wife is working, and you should remember about it. 

Mr. AuBERjoNois. I don't remember the details of the cancellation 
of that third program, sir, because I haven't had the files. 

The Chairman. May I ask you a simple question? Do you re- 
member whether or not you had the task of determining whether or 
not the bill of Media, Houseman's corporation, should be paid? Do 
you remember anything about that ? 

Mr. AuBERjONOis, That should not be my function and that was 
not under my job description, and that was not my function, sir. I 
am sure that, under the administrative system of the Voice of 
America, it was not my function to do it. I may have been asked to 
do it, in which case it was the judgment of somebody. It was to ask 
for my opinion. 

The Chairman. Let us forget whether it was your function. Do 
you recall whether you actually did. If you do not remember, tell 
us no ; and, if you do remember, tell us yes. 

Mr. AucERjoNois. I must say that I can not recall exactly how the 
thing happened. 

The Chairman. Do you recall anything about your passing upon 
this bill? 

Mr. AuBERjoNOis. No; I don't remember even having seen the 
bill. 

Senator McClellan. Apparently here comes in a bill for services 
performed under a contract to supply to the Voice on the French 
desk certain materials for broadcasts. There are packaged programs. 
Would it not be a natural thing for whoever handles the bills to 
submit it to your department for approval first, before it was paid? 
Would not that occur in the ordinary course of things ? 

Mr. AuBERjONOis. No, sir ; it would not. 

Senator McClellan. How would they know whether you had 
received the material, and whether it had been used, and whether 
the contract had been performed ? 

Mr. AuBERJONois. The evaluation of the sums, the amounts to be 
paid, were not our concern. 

Senator McClellan. This memorandum says that you stated the 
amount was justified. Do you say that you did or did not, when 
it was submitted to you, or referred to you, say it was justified? 

Mr. Auberjonois. I don't remember that material very well, and 
I would have to see more of the background of the file. 

Senator McClellan. You cannot say that you did or did not ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. No, sir. 

Senator McClellan. Can you say it was even submitted to you? 
Apparently it was. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 293 

Mr. AuBERjONOis. It may have been. 

Senator McClellan. This memorandam says it was. 

Mr. AuBERjONOis. It may have been, but it vs^as not my decision. 
My decision would not have been final, at least. 

Senator McClellan. I did not say your decision was final. I sim- 
ply asked you if you know it was submitted to you first. 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. It seems to have been, according to that memo- 
randum. 

Senator McCleli^vn. Do you have any recollection of it having been 
submitted to you ? 

Mr. AuBERjoNois. No, I have a vague recollection of discussion on 
telephones, but not in looking at papers. 

Senator McClellan. Were you called up and asked if it was O. K. 
whether it should be paid or not ? Is that what you mean ? 

Mr. AuBERjONOis. It may have been. 

Senator McClellan. It may have been? 

Mr. Atjberjonois. Yes. 

Senator McClellan. Well, I am not trying to get you to say you 
remember something; if you do not remember, say so, but apparently 
the bill came in, and that part of it at least was referred to you for 
your approval or your suggestions about it, as to whether it should 
be paid, and apparently you O. K.'d it. 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. I may have, but I don't remember any of it. 

Senator McClellan. Could the committee draw any other con- 
clusion from these documents? Could anyone draw any other con- 
clusion, other than the fact it had been submitted to you, and that 
you approved payment of it? Can you yourself draw any other 
conclusion ? 

Mr. Atjberjonois. Yes, because I don't believe that approval was 
requested. 

Senator McClellan. I am not talking about whether it was re- 
quired, but could you draw any other conclusion from these records 
other than that the bill was submitted to you for your approval, and 
that you did approve it? 

Mr. Auberjonois. No, sir ; I probably approved it, then. 

Senator McClellan. That is all. 

Senator Jackson. Did your wife work on program No. 3, the script 
Pictures of Hollywood ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. No, sir. 

Senator Jackson. She did not ? ^ ^ 

Mr. Auberjonois. No, sir. 

Senator Jackson. What scripts did she work on ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. Series No. 2. 

Senator Jackson. This is program No. 3, and not the series. This 
is program No. 3. 

Mr. Auberjonois. Of the third series ? 

Senator Jackson. Well, it is just referred to as program No. 3, 
"Pictures of Hollywood, 1 script, $250," and then underneath it 
are 8 recordings of rough material. 

Mr. Auberjonois. No ; she did not work on that at all. 

Senator Jackson. She did not ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. No, sir. 



294 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Senator Jackson. Wliat time did your wife work on these scripts? 
When was it ? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. It was in 1951, sir. In March, I believe, or April. 

Senator Jackson. March or April? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. Yes, sir; if I remember correctly. 

Senator Jackson. Did she work on the "ICI New World" series? 

Mr. Atjberjonois. No, sir. 

Senator Jackson. She did not? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. No, sir ; she worked on 3 scripts, 1 entitled "Nos- 
talgia" ; 1, "The Madison Square Garden" scrip ; and 1, "The Railroads 
of America." 

The Chairman. Will you produce those three scripts ? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. I believe they have been sent to the committee, 
sir. 

Senator Jackson. Were you ever consulted about payment on those 
scripts ? 

Mr. AuBERjoNOis. Consulted ? 

Senator Jackson. Were you ever consulted by people within the 
Voice with reference to payment on the presentation of vouchers by 
Media? Did they ask you about them? Did they ask you whether 
they sliould be paid ? That is a simple question. 

Mr. AuBERjoNois. The series ; yes, sir ; certainly. 

Senator Jackson. What did you say? Did you recommend pay- 
ment on your wife's script ? 

Mr. AuBERjoNois. No ; that was Mr. Houseman's decision. 

Senator Jackson. Well, no. I am sure you are misinformed. Mr. 
Houseman would not pass on the question of whether they are going 
to be paid. Certainly I hope it is for the Government agency to 
decide when they are to be paid. Is it not a fact that from time to 
time they would consult you with reference to payments of scripts and 
other production work on the part of Media? Let me ask you that 
question. 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. On scripts, yes ; I don't believe that on payments 
my advice would be of much use to them. 

Senator Jackson, But did they not consult you about whether the 
script was worthy of payment or whether it should be disallowed ? 

Mr. AuBERjoNois. No ; I believe the editorial supervision, generally 
speaking, yes ; but, once the contract was signed, I believe that it had 
to be paid. 

Senator Jackson. I woiJd like to have this marked as an exhibit, 
Mr. Chairman, and ask the witness to see if he can refresh his recol- 
lection. I do not know what exhibit number this will be. I would like 
you to look at the document and see if you can refresh your recol- 
lection as to whether or not you were consulted regarding payment for 
material prepared by Media. 

Mr. MiGDAL. May I consult with my client ? 

Senator Jackson. Certainly. 

(The witness consulted with his counsel.) 

(The document was marked "Exhibit No. 24," and will be found 
in the appendix on p. 327.) 

Senator Jackson. Is it not a fact that that memorandum disclosed 
that you were consulted about these scripts from Media as to whether 
payment should be made? What does it say down there, and why do 
you not read it ? 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 295 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. It says, "In consultation with Mr. Auberjonois of 
the French unit, we have come to the following conclusions about the 
above-listed claims." 

Senator Jackson. What does it say in the next line? Eead the 
next line. 

Mr. Auberjonois. [Reading :] "The claim of $250 for the script is 
justified." And this is the third series. 

Senator Jackson. I understand that, but I understood your testi- 
mony to be a little while ago, a moment ago, that you were not consulted 
about the scripts from Media. 

Mr. Auberjonois. I don't believe that I had to be consulted, and 
why I was consulted, I would like to know. 

Senator Jackson. I did not ask you that. I asked you whether you 
had been consulted, and does not that 

Mr. Auberjonois, No. 

Senator Jackson. What does that memorandum disclose? That 
you had been consulted, does it not? 

Mr. Auberjonois. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jackson. All right. 

The Chairman. I am going to ask the Senators and counsel to cut 
the examination as short as we can. We have three other witnesses. 

Let me ask you just one question. Were you responsible for the 
discharge of Dr. Lenkeith ? 

]Mr. Auberjonois. No, sir; I hired her. I did not fire her. 

The Chairman. Did she ever discuss with you the possibility of 
giving her view to the Chambers article ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. I think she discussed it with my successor, sir. 

The Chairman. Did she discuss it with you ? That is the question. 

Mr. Auberjonois. Of the book ? 

The Chairman. Of the article. 

Mr. Auberjonois. Of the article ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Auberjonois. I believe she brought it up ; yes. 

The Chairman. Did you tell her that you thought that Chambers 
was a psychopathic case, or something of that sort ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. I opposed the review. 

The Chairman. Did you or did you not ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. I opposed the first article, sir. 

The Chairman. Pardon me ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. I opposed the first article. 

The Chairman. The question was. Did you tell her that you thought 
he was a psychopathic case ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. I don't recall the terms I used exactly. 

The Chairman. Do you know whether you told her substantially 
that ? Just say yes or not. Do you think you did or you think you 
did not ? 

Mr. Auberjonois. I have asked a few people since then, since we 
have discussed the matter. 

The Chairman. Just try to answer it. Do you think you told her 
that or do you think you did not, or do you not remember? 

Mr. Auberjonois. I don't remember the terms at all, sir, and I may 
have; if I have, I know exactly what my position was on the first 
article. 



296 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

The Chairman. Do you know now that you were violating State De- 
partment regulations when you had your wife accept money from 
Houseman ? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. No, sir. 

The Chairman. You do not know it now ? You do not know you 
were violating State Department regulations ? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. State Department regulations? 

The Chairisian. Yes. 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. I would like to go into that further. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you not recall your testimony in executive ses- 
sion : That attention was called to the fact that the employment should 
not be direct or indirect ? 

]\Ir. AuBERJONOis. I don't remember the exact language of the 
ruling. 

The Chairman. Did you not state in the executive session that you 
realized now that you had violated them ? Did you not state in execu- 
tive session that you realized you were violating the regulations, or do 
you not remember that ? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. I do now. 

The Chairman. You now know you were violating State Depart- 
ment regulations? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I may say this will be evidence, of course, called 
to the attention of the State Department. 

One other question. Your wife was paid according to the officials 
of Media in a manner — rather the payment to her was handled differ- 
ently from other script writers ; and, instead of having Media pay her, 
we find that Media paid Mr. Houseman, and Mr. Houseman in turn 
paid your wife. We have his statement in which he says that he 
talked to you about that — or, I beg your pardon, that Mr. Hamilton, 
who apparently now is head of Media, talked to Mr. Houseman about 
it, and Mr. Houseman said he had discussed it with you and that that 
is the way you wanted the payments made. 

In other words, to have Media pay Houseman, and Houseman in 
turn paid your wife. Is that correct or not? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. That I had requested payments made ? No, sir. 

The Chairman. That you requested that the payments be made not 
directly from Media, but that the payments be made to Houseman and 
Houseman then would pay your wife. 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. That would have made no difference. 

The Chairman. The question is. Did you request the payments to be 
made in that fashion. If you do not understand me, just tell me. Do 
you understand the question ? 

Mr. AuBERJONois. Did I request indirect payment? 

The Chairman. Did you request that the payments to your wife, 
instead of being made directly from Media Corp., which is the normal 
procedure, that Media give John Houseman the money, so that House- 
man would appear on the books of the company as having received 
it, and Houseman would turn around and give your wife some money. 
Did you request the payment be handled in that fashion ? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. I don't remember discussing that at all, sir. 

The Chairman. You do not remember that ? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. No, sir. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 297 

The Chairinian. You do remember that you worked on the scripts 
for which your wife got paid, do you ? 

Mr. AuBERjoNois. No, sir. I have done work on every one of the 
scripts that Media has done, for editorial corrections, but the scripts 
were already developed. 

The Chairman. Before your wife presented a script to Media, did 
you work on it ^ 

Mr. AuBERjONOis. Well, to a certain extent I did. 

The Chairman. Did you do it during office hours? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. No, sir. 

The Chairman, Never? 

Mr. AuBERjONOis. No, sir. I have always given plenty of my own 
time to this program. 

The Chairman. You may step down, sir. 

We have established that you are one of the three men who estab- 
lished policy for the Voice of America. There is no question about 
that, is there? You are one of the three men who established policy 
for the Voice ? 

Mr. AuBERJONOis. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. If the Senators have no objection, we will introduce 
as an exhibit the document entitled "Media Productions," dated Sep- 
tember 13, 1951, project No. 25. 

(The document referrrecl to was marked "Exhibit No. 25" and will 
be found in the appendix on p. 328.) 

The Chairman. The document dated September 20, entitled "At- 
tention Mr. Cesanne," will be accepted as an exhibit. I believe we 
have accepted all of the material you offered. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 26" and may 
be found in the files of the subcommittee.) 

Mr. MiGDAL. I would like to offer also the February 12, 1951, and 
February 12, 1952, scripts in evidence, and I would like to offer a paper 
referred to in one of the statements referred to the committee, dated 
February 1, with respect to cuts in WAE and POA funds. 

The Chairman. They will be accepted as exhibits. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibit 27," and "Ex- 
hibit 28," respectively. Exhibit 27 may be found in the files of the 
subcommittee. Exhibit 28 will be found in the appendix on p. 328.) 

The Chairman. There is no question about the documents that I 
just gave the clerk. They came from the official files of the Voice. 

Mr. CoHN. That is right, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. We should mark as an exhibit also the document 
entitled "Trucking Notes," and the memorandum from Mr. Auber- 
jonois regarding the six projects. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibit Nos. 29 and 30." 
Exhibit 29 may be found in the files of the subcommittee. Exhibit 
30 will be found in the appendix on p. 329.) 

Mr. MiGDAL,. Are we to hold ourselves in readiness or are you 
through ? 

The Chairman. I am inclined to think that there will be nothing 
further we will want from your client. However, he will consider 
himself under subpena, and if we want him, the staff will notify you 
as to when he is wanted. 

If there is further evidence in regard to Mr. Auberjonois, he may 
want to testify or we may want him, I do not know. 



298 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

The Chaikman. Mr. Lyons, would you step up, please. Will you 
raise your right hand. In this matter now before this committee, do 
you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 
the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Lyons. I do. 

The Chairman. I think the record should be clear that the staff 
called Mr. Lyons and asked him if he cared to come down and testify 
in view of the fact there was testimony regarding him this morning, 
and Mr. Lyons said he would call back. He called back later and said 
he wanted to testify, so that he is given the privilege of coming down. 
You understand, Mr. Lyons, even though you request the right to 
appear, your transportation fees are paid, the same as though you are 
under subpena. 

Mr. Lyons. I understand. 

TESTIMONY OF EOGER LYONS, THE DIRECTOE OF RELIGIOUS 
PROGRAMING OF THE VOICE OF AMERICA 

The Chairman. Mr. Lyons, what is your position with the Voice ? 

Mr. Lyons. I am the Director of Religious Programing. 

The Chairman. Now, normally this committee is not at all con- 
cerned with the religious beliefs of any witness or any Government 
employee. Every man has a right to belong to any church group or 
no church group, be an agnostic or an atheist, or whatever he cares 
to be in this country. However, in view of the fact that you are in 
charge of the desk having to do with religious programing, it does 
become important to know whether or not you are an atheist or agnos- 
tic or whether yor do go to some church. 

The statement has been made that j^ou are an atheist, so if you do 
not mind, we will go into that question. Do you go to any church ? 

Mr. Lyons. I do not belong to any affiliated church organization. 

The Chairman. How long since you have gone to either a church 
or a synagogue ? 

Mr. Lyons. Approximately a month ago. 

The Chairman. Do you attend any church or any synagogue, or 
any house of worship of any kind regularly ? 

Mr. Lyons. No ; I do not. 

The Chairman. Do you contribute to any church ? 

Mr. Lyons. Yes ; I have. 

The Chairman. How much have you contributed over the past 5 
years ? 

Mr. Lyons. I only recall one contribution to a church organization, 
and that was recently. I gave $10 to the church in my neighborhood. 

The Chairman. Normally, I would not care what church you had 
contributed to, but so the staff can check on that, I will ask you what 
church you contributed to. 

Mr. Lyons. St. Paul's Lutheran Church, in West Englewood, N. J. 

The Chairman. You do not claim to be a Lutheran ? 

Mr. Lyons. I do not. 

The Chairman. You do not claim to belong to any religious group ? 

Mr. Lyons. I do not. 

The Chairman. How would you describe yourself? Would you 
describe yourself as an atheist, agnostic, a Christian, or Jewish, or 
how do you describe yourself? 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 299 

Mr. Lyons. I am not an atheist, or an agnostic. I believe in God. 

The Chairman. Do you think that a man who is in charge of re- 
ligious programing might do a better job if he belonged to some 
church himself and were a regular churchgoer ? 

Mr. Lyons. Not necessarily. 

The Chairman. Well, not necessarily, but would not you think 
that ordinarily if you are selecting a man to head a so-called religious 
desk, you would try and get a man who did belong to some religious 
group ? 

Mr. Lyons. No. 

The Chairman. Did you write a thesis for Columbia University? 

Mr. Lyons. I have. 

The Chairman. Wliat was the subject? 

Mr. Lyons. Toward a Clearer Criterion of Moral Value. 

The Chairman. A clearer criterion of moral value? Did you ex- 
press an opinion in that whether you believed in a Divine Being ? 

Mr. Lyons. I did not. 

The Chairman. You say in that thesis, you did not express an 
opinion as to whether you believed in God or not? 

Mr. Lyons. I did not. 

The Chairman. Do you have a copy of that thesis available? 

Mr. Lyons. I do. 

The Chairman. You do not have it with you ? 

Mr. Lyons. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Does the staff have that? I may say, Mr. Lyons, 
your name only came up this morning, and I had never heard of your 
name before, so we know very little about you at this time. We will 
want a copy of that thesis. 

In view of the fact you requested the right to appear, I think that 
you should be given complete freedom to make any statement that you 
care to at this time, and I intended to have you do that before I ques- 
tioned you, if you have any statement you care to make. 

Mr. Lyons. I have a statement in reference to the statement made 
this morning concerning my professed atheism. 

The Chairman. You may make the statement. 

Mr. Lyons. The statement is as follows : I do believe in God, and 
I would not have accepted the position of Religious Director of Reli- 
gious Programing if I had not believed in God, and I realize the im- 
portance of emphasizing religious and moral factors in the Voice Of 
America broadcasts. Because I believe in the importance of these 
broadcasts, I accepted the position. I have been in the present posi- 
tion for 18 months, and I have statements from the religious advisory 
panel of the information program consisting of distinguished relig- 
ious leaders stating that since I have been in this position there has 
been a marked improvement in both the quality and quantity of 
religious programing on the Voice of America. 

I also have letters from clergymen of all faiths testifying that I have 
done a good job in the areas under my responsibility. 

Senator Jackson. Have you had any religious education? I did 
not mean to interrupt. Are you finished ? 

Mr. Lyons. My religious education was not of the formal kind. I 
am Jewish by background. I studied religion at Columbia University 
in connection with writing my philosophical thesis. 

Senator Jackson. Did you major in religion? 



300 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Mr. Lyons. No ; I majored in philosophy. 

Senator Jackson. You are head of the religious desk of the Voice 
of America. What particular qualifications did you feel that you had 
that would be helpful in view of this important assignment ^ 

Mr. Lyons. I was about to tell you. 

Senator Jackson. Will you proceed? 

Mr. Lyons. In connection with my thesis I studied religion in Union 
Theological Seminary, which is a branch of Columbia University. 
There I studied mostly under a Prof. Paul Tillich, who inspired me 
to become very, very interested in this whole subject, and I organized 
of my own volition and with his approval a seminar with Professor 
Tillich, who is a teacher of the philosophy of religion and systematic 
theology in Union, a seminar on religion at which he gave a weekly 
lecture at various times with some regularity over a period of 3 years. 

Senator Jackson. Is this in connection w^ith your master's degree? 

Mr. Lyons. This was entirely on my own initiative. It happens 
to be that Professor Tillich was one of my advisers in comiection with 
my thesis, but this further work was because of my own spontaneous 
interest in the spiritual factors. 

The Chairman. Do I understand the thesis was submitted in con- 
nection with your getting your master's degree ? 

Mr. Lyons. No ; it was submitted in connection with my getting my 
Ph. D. degree in the department, the graduate department of philos- 
ophy. I did not get it. I have passed all of the requirements except 
that when my thesis came up for approval in the final oral exam, I 
was asked to revise it. 

The Chairman. Your thesis was not accepted ? 

Mr. Lyons. It was not accepted. It was not rejected, either, but 
they asked that I revise it. 

The Chairman. Could you tell us something about that thesis, in 
that did you indicate that you believed in a Divine Being, or did you 
indicate that you did not ? 

Mr. Lyons. I did not indicate either that I believed in a Divine 
Being or that I did not, because the thesis had to do with an attempt 
to discuss the meaning of certain words, and the clarification of cer- 
tain statements, in order that a principle of moral value might be 
stated, which might or might not be acceptable. It was not a question 
of belief. 

The Chairman. Do you have any objection to our making your 
thesis an exhibit? 

Mr. Lyons. Not at all. I have some further remarks to make about 
my background. 

I also studied psychology and religion in Switzerland from 1946 to 
1948. 

Senator Jackson. What school? 

Mr. Lyons. I studied with Prof. Karl Jung. 

Senator Jackson. What school? 

Mr. Lyons. There was no school. It was a private thing. After 
the war was over, I voluntarily became interested in this whole sub- 
ject, and I went over to study with him. The School of Analytical 
Psychology, if you want to have a name for it. 

Senator Jackson. In his house ? 

Mr. Lyons. Not in his house. I lived in Switzerland and I attended 
classes there, and I studied with individuals. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 301 

The Chairman. You attended a School of Analytical Psychology. 
That is the name of the school ? 

JNIr. Ltons. That is the name of the school that Professor Jung calls 
his school. 

The Chairman. How many students attended ? 

Mr. Lyons. I was one of the first. At the time I came over after 
the war, there was no formal study at that time, but later. 

The Chairman. You were the first student ? 

Mr. Lyons. I was one of the first students to come over from 
America. 

The Chairman. You were the only student for a while? 

Mr. Lyons. There wasn't any formal curriculum. 

The Chairman. Were you the only student in this field ? 

Mr. Lyons. There may have been others, but I don't know them. 
I think others came in to study privately, but not under any formal 
organization which might be called 

The Chairman. That is rather an unusual school with only one 
student. 

]\Ir. Lyons. That increased with the time, because the war pre- 
vented a great many students. 

The Chairman. Wliat is his religious background? 

Mr. Lyons. His religious background, he is the son of a clergyman, 
and he has never professed himself as to any particular religious 
belief, but he has a great interest in the spiritual factors that are 
involved in analytical psychology or depth psychology, as it is some- 
times called. 

The Chairman. This professor under whom you studied, as far as 
you know, does not go to any church or synagogue ? 

Mr. Lyons. I don't know. 

The Chairman. Well, now, if you studied with him, you are 
studying religion, I assume you would know. 

Mr. Lyons. I studied religion but not in connection with his church- 
going activities. 

The Chairman. If you were a one-man school, a one-man pro- 
fessor was teaching, studying religion, would you not be interested 
in knowing whether this man was affiliated with any church? 

Mr. Lyons. As a matter of fact, I didn't study with him directly, 
because he was too busy to see me, and I studied mostly with his 
associates, and I don't believe that all spiritual interest in spiritual 
matters revolve solely about the church. 

The Chairman. I am not saying they do, and let us make it very 
clear, we are not at all critical of you for your decision to go to 
church or not to go to church. You have a perfect right to do what 
the devil you please in this country. The only question is whether 
or not a man whom witnesses say is an athiest, and you say that you 
are not — good — you say you do not go to any church. The question is 
whether it would be better to have a man heading the religious desk 
who clearly believes in a church. 

Mr. Lyons. I think one of the reasons it is almost a good thing that 
a man does not have a particular religious affiliation in connection 
with this job is because we are not dealing with any one particular 
religion, or any one particular denomination. It is necessary to deal 
in my job with areas of the world that are largely non-Christian, 
such as areas which are Buddhist, Moslem, Hindu, and so forth. 



302 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

A man who is professed to belong to any particular denomination 
might very easily be prejudiced so that he could not deal objectively 
with these points of view, especially in a country where there is free- 
dom of worship such as you have described. I believe one advantage 
of not belonging to any particular group is that one can work with 
all of them, and I believe that I have done that successfully. 

The Chairman. We do not press the fact that a man who is an 
athiest might not be a great proponent of freedom of religion, and he 
might do an excellent job. I do not know. 

Mr. Lyons. I have denied that I am an athiest. 

The Chairman. Freedom of religion means freedom not to have 
any religion at all, too. We are just trying to get at the truth of the 
matter at this time. 

Is there anything further ? 

Senator McClellan. I have just one or two questions. 

As I recalled the testimony of this morning, it was by Dr. Cocutz. 
It w\as to the effect that Mr. Kretzmann had made the statement to 
him that he had said, as I recall, to some religious group that came 
to see him, that you were an atheist. 

Mr. Lyons. I believe Mr. Kretzmann will testify 

Senator McCkellan. He has not yet testified, so that I do not 
know whether he will confirm or deny that, but I was going to ask 
you, do you know of any reason why, if he did, Mr. Kretzmann should 
have made any statement ? 

Mr. Lyons. I know of no reason why, and I do not believe that he 
made such a statement. 

Senator McClellan. May I ask you this one further question now ? 
Have you heretofore publicly, either in your writings or other occa- 
sions, announced your profession or belief in God ? 

Mr. Lyons. I have. 

Senator McClellan. Publicly, I mean. 

Mr. Lyons. I don't know what you mean by "publicly." 

Senator McClellan. I mean where people could hear you and know 
it. 

Mr. Lyons. I can get affidavits from individuals. 

Senator McClellan, I am just asking you for information, and if 
you have, that is fine. 

Mr. Lyons. I want to know if "publicly" means one person or does 
it mean to the press, or does it mean — I am not clear what you mean by 
"publicly." I don't get up in front of a group and say to them, "I 
believe in God." 

Senator McClellan. Have you ever had occasion before where 
there was any interest manifested to declare your position or your 
belief? 

Mr. Lyons. Yes, sir. 

Senator McClellan. And I will assume that on the other occasions 
you have said that you believed in God ? 

Mr. Lyons. I have. 

Senator McClellan. That is all. 

The Chairman. Who placed you in this particular job? 

Mr. Lyons. Mr. Alfred Puhan, I believe, was the most responsible 
person but I also think that Mr. Kretzmann in conjunction with him 
was urging that a director of religious programing be appointed, and 
since Mr. Puhan is my superior in the operational part of the Voice 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 303 

of America, he would be the man that actually put me in that position. 

The Chairman. Did Mr. Kretzmann ask you if you believed in a 
Divine Being when he put you in charge of this desk ? 

Mr. Lyons. No, he did not. 

The Chairman. Did he indicate any interest since then as to whether 
or not you did or did not believe in a Divine Beiilg? 

Mr. Lyons. He did not. 

The Chairman. Whom did you use as your references when you 
applied for a job at the State Department? 

Mr. Lyons. That was some 10 years ago. Senator, 

The Chairman. Would you know whom you used ? 

Mr. Lyons. I do not remember offhand who they were. 

The Chairman. When did you graduate? Did you graduate from 
Columbia? 

Mr. Lyons. No ; I graduated from Hamilton College. 

The Chapman. When did you last go to Columbia? 

Mr. Lyons. My thesis was reviewed in 1950. 

The Chairman. When did you last go to Columbia? 

Mr. Lyons. I was still studying there — I last attended as a student 
in 1943, 1 believe. 

The Chairman. Wlien did you graduate from Hamilton ? 

Mr. Lyons. Li 1936. 

The Chairman. Do you know Mr. Keed Harris? 

Mr. Lyons. I only know of him by name. 

The Chairman. I have just one further question. Would you care 
to tell us why you refused to revise your thesis and what revisions 
you were asked to make in it? 

Mr. Lyons. I didn't say I refused to revise my thesis. 

The Chairman. I am sorry. I thought that the testimony was 
that you had. 

Mr. Lyons. Oh, no. 

The Chairman. Was it not suggested that you revise your thesis 
when you came up for graduation, in the oral examination? 

Mr. Lyons. It was suggested at that time that if I wanted a doctor 
of philosophy degree, I would have to revise my thesis. 

The Chairman. And you refused? 

Mr. Lyons. I did not refuse. 

The Chairman. Did you revise it? 

Mr. Lyons. I am in the process of revising it, and I hope I shall 
have enough time to do so. 

The Chairman. What revisions were suggested? 

Mr. Lyons. That is rather difficult to say. Some professors told 
me to cut it and I could simplify it, and I went to every one of the 
professors to ask them, but they were not very clear as to just what I 
should do with it. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Senator Jackson. Do you belong to any fraternal organizations ? 

Mr. Lyons. No, I do not. 

Could I make one further statement? It seems to me that the 
statement of Mr. Cocutz was made second- or at least third-hand, 
and there was no attempt to verify, either on his part or on the part 
of the committee, whether this statement of his was true or false. I 
think that there is something wrong with committee procedure. 

29708— 53— pt. 4 6 



304 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Senator Jackson. Do yon not think the committee has been pretty 
fair ? You were asked to come down here right away, and Dr. Cocutz 
testified about your beliefs based on what Mr. Kretzmann had testified 
to, and you were notified immediately and had a chance to be heard 
today. 

Mr. Lyons. But this was released to the press. 

Senator Jackson. You are here before the press now to answer it, 
and this is a pretty serious charge. You are in charge of the religious 
desk. 

The Chairman. This committee has no right of censorship over a 
witness, and you come on the stand and we do not know what you are 
going to testify to, and you can make a statement saying that John 
Jones has been guilty of a certain act. We cannot order you not to. 
All we can do, I think, is what we did today, and I wonder if you 
have any other suggestions — we promptly called you and told you we 
would pay your expenses down here and your expenses back, so you 
lose no money by this. You first said you did not know whether you 
wanted to come or not. 

Mr. Lyons. I never said that. I knew that I wanted to come. 

The Chairman. You told the staff you would call them back and let 
them Imow. 

Mr. Lyons. I had to find out whether I could make arrangements. 

The Chairman. We called you down here and let you answer this, 
and if you think there is something further we can do, any further 
witnesses to call, we will be glad to. However, you can see this 
committee has no right of censorship over a witness. We call the wit- 
nesses and ask them to tell us the truth. 

A witness was on the stand this morning, and if he thought the 
head of the religious desk was an atheist, I think he had a duty to tell 
that to the committee. He did tell that to the committee. 

We have Mr. Kretzmann here now, and we have other witnesses. I 
would suggest that you wait and listen to the other witnesses, and you 
may want to be heard again when they get through. 

The staff tells me there are other witnesses who will give testimony 
along the same line that Mr. Cocutz did this morning. 

Mr. Lyons. But absolutely anybody, whether a responsible or ir- 
responsible person, can give such testimony, and when it gets into the 
press it is bound to possibly reflect on the character or personality of 
the individual. 

Senator Jackson. What more could this committee have done? 

Mr. Lyons. I would suggest that the committee could have heard 
this testimony in private, and have attempted to check it with the 
party that told it, and also have come to me and asked me. Even Mr. 
Cocutz didn't have the common decency to ask me whether there was 
any basis for his statement. 

Senator Jackson. Even if it had been heard in executive session 
it would have to come out in public, because it is your word against 
his and Mr. Kretzmann's ; is that not right ? 

Mr. Lyons. I am just saying the way I believe it should have been 
done. 

The Chairman. Your suggestion is that the committee hear all 
witnesses in executive session first, so that we will know what they will 
testify in public session ; is that your answer? 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 305 

Mr. Lyons. I think certain statements that are made should be 
verified, or checked, before they are released to the press. 

The Chairman. I am glad to get advice at any time at all. 

Mr. Lyons. You asked me what I thought. 

The Chairman. It is your suggestion now that all witnesses should 
be heard in executive session, and maybe it is a good idea. Is it your 
suggestion that all witnesses should be heard in executive session so 
that if they are going to charge anyone, or rather, give any testimony 
of a derogatory nature, that can be checked before it is done in public 
session ? Now, that may be a good suggestion, and I am wondering 
if that is your suggestion. 

Mr. Lyons. That is a good suggestion, if you mean by "executive 
session" 

The Chairman. Let us assume that we heard Mr. Cocutz in execu- 
tive session, and he said that the head of the religious desk was an 
atheist ; and you come before the committee and you say that you are 
not, in executive session. Is it your thought then that we should take 
your word for it rather than Cocutz', and forget about it ? 

Mr. Lyons. There was an intermediary here. Mr. Cocutz was of 
the opinion that he heard from Mr. Kretzmann that I professed not 
to believe in God. Mr. Kretzmann was not consulted as to whether 
he made this statement, and I was not consulted as to whether this 
statement was true, and I think that that was a means of verification 
which could have taken place without having this situation arise at all. 

The Chairman. I may say, sir, that there is considerable merit to 
what you say generally, and that is, that before a statement is made, an 
adverse statement is made by someone at a public session, the com- 
mittee should try to check it completely. Had we heard this witness 
in executive session, we would be able to question you a lot better to- 
day, also. We would have that thesis which you wrote, and we would 
know what you said, and we would run down a lot of additional infor- 
mation in regard to you. As it is, we are questioning you more or less 
in the dark. Unfortunately, we cannot hear all witnesses in executive 
session, and we have no right to censor what they are going to say. If 
they tell the truth, good; and if they perjure themselves, action is 
taken. 

I want to thank you very much. 

Mr. Kretzmann, please. 

Raise your right hand, Mr. Kretzmann. 

In this matter do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole 
trutli, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Kretzmann. So help me God ; yes, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF EDWIN M. J. KRETZMANN, POLICY ADVISER OP 
THE VOICE OP AMERICA, DEPARTMENT OP STATE 

The Chairman. Give us your full name. 

Mr. Kretzmann. Edwin M. J. Kretzmann. 

The Chairman. You are Policy Director for the Voice ? 

Mr. Kretzmann. Policy Adviser is the exact title, sir. 

The Chairman. Mr. Auberjonois is one of your assistants, and Mr. 
Knox is the other assistant ? 

Mr. ICretzmann. Mr. Knox is the Deputy Policy Adviser, and Mr. 
Auberjonois is Special Assistant to the Director assigned to me for 
duty. 



306 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

The Chairman. How would you describe that chain of command '( 
You are No. 1 man, and who is No. 2 ? 

Mr. Kretzmann. Mr. Knox. 

The Chairman. And then Mr. Auberjonois? 

Mr, Kretzmann. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. We had a document before us this morning with 
some penciled notations on it, and your name was written on it in 
longhand, and someone's initials. I could not make out whose initials 
they were. I wonder if you have identified that document and the 
notations thereon? Do you know about the testimony this morning 
in regard to this particular anti-Communist script ? 

Mr. Kretzmann. No, sir; I have not seen the transcript. I have 
seen only some of the news reports, and that is why I came down. 

The Chairman. Did you see enough to know who had put the pen- 
ciled notations on that particular script ? 

Mr. Kretzmann. If you have it there, I can identify it in a moment. 

The Chairman. The reporter is having it photostated now, so we 
do not have it here. I wondered if joii knew enough about it to be 
able to tell us that. 

Mr. Kretzmann. As I remember it, it wasn't a script. It was a 
document from Dr. Cocutz, which I had reviewed by a number of 
competent people in the office, including Bertram Wolfe and M. 
Gordon Knox, who is, I believe, the man. 

The Chairjuan. Bertram Wolfe? 

Mr. Kretzmann. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you know that Bertram Wolfe admits having 
belonged to the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Kretzmann. Yes, sir ; that is why we hired him. 

The Chairman. Do you think that he is anti-Communist now ? 

Mr. Kretzmann. Very much so, sir. I think he is one of the most 
effective persons we have. 

The Chairman. Have you reviewed his writings, ever ? 

Mr. Kretzmann. I think that I have read in almost everything he 
has written, and I wouldn't swear to it, because he has written many 
things, but I have looked into most of his work. 

The Chairman. Are you aware of the fact that Congressman Bus- 
bey made a speech about Bertram Wolfe over in the House, and that the 
' State Department assigned a man to analyze the statements made by 
Busbey, in defense of Bertram Wolfe? In other words, his task was 
to prepare documentary proof showing that Bertram Wolfe was an 
active anti-Communist and had left the party sometime in 1929 or 
1930. Are you aware of that fact ? 

Mr. Kretzmann. I was not aware that Mr. Busbey had made that 
statement, or of the rest of it. But I do know that Mr. Wolfe left the 
Communist Party and has become very active in fighting against it. 

The Chairman. Do you know that the State Dej^artment did assign 
a man the task of analyzing the record of Mr. Wolfe and giving a 
report on whether or not he is still a Communist or whether he is 
actually anti-Communist ? Are you aware of that ? 

Mr. Kretzmann. I was not so informed officially, sir, but I did 
hear rumors that they were reviewing his writings. 

The Chairman. You know that was done? 

Mr. Kretzmann. Yes; unofficially. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 307 

The Chairman. Have you seen tlie report which that State Depart- 
ment employee has written on Bertram Wolfe? 

Mr. Kretzmanx. I have not. 

The Chairman. Yon know that Bertram Wolfe broke with the 
Stalinists at the time that Lovestone broke ? 

Mr. Kretzmann. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. At that time there was an ideological break because 
of the fight over who should run the party. I am thinking of the 
original break. 

Mr. Kretzmann. To the best of my knowledge, and I have talked 
this over with Mr. Wolfe many times, it was an ideological break from 
the very beginning. 

The Chairman. In any event, you consider him an active anti- 
Communist at this time ? 

Mr. Kretzmann. I consider him a very active and effective anti- 
Communist. 

The Chairman. Would you consider him anti-Marxist ? 

Mr. Kretzmann. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you have any distinction in your mind between 
the two, communism and Marxism ? 

Mr. Kretzmann. Quite a good deal. The formula that Mr. Wolfe 
uses is to play off Marx against Lenin, and Lenin against Stalin, and 
the facts of history against all three of them. 

The Chairman. So that you have a distinction in your mind be- 
tween Marxism and communism ? 

Mr. Kretzmann. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Now, in view of the fact you asked to come down 
today, we should first hear any statement you have to make before 
we do any further questioning. 

Mr. Kretzmann. Well, as I said, I haven't seen the testimony, but 
from the news report of it it seemed to me that several things have 
been placed in wrong perspective, and I came down to see if I could 
help. 

The Chairman. In view of the fact you have asked to come down 
and be heard, do you not think it would be better if you had first 
seen the testimony and read it? Otherwise, how can you answer 
the testimony ? I am only suggesting this to you. I am glad to hear 
you right now if you want to be heard. 

Mr. Kretzmann. I thought it was essential that we clear up some 
of these misunderstandings, which were quoted in the paper. 

The Chairman. Did you ever have any conversation with Dr. 
Cocutz about Mr. Lyons ? 

ISIr. Kretzmann. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you discuss the question of whether or not 
he had any belief in a Divine Being ? 

INIr. Kretzmann. Not in that form or under that particular heading. 

The Chairman. Or believe in God — any way you want. 

Mr. Kretzmann. I believe I narrated to Mr. Cocutz the story which 
is involved in his misunderstanding of this. 

The Chairman. Will you tell us about it ? 

Mr. Kretzmann. May I tell it, sir ? 

The Chairman. All right, if you will. 

Mr. Kretzmann. I was asked at one time by a superior in the De- 
partment of State what was Roger Lyons' specific religious sectarian 



308 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

adherence. My answer was that that was not a pertinent question for 
him to ask ; and laughingly I added, "For all I know, he may be an 
atheist." 

This I knew not to be a fact, because I had talked to Mr. Lyons pre- 
viously. My remark was only intended to underscore the fact that his 
religious sectarian preference was not essential to his job, and I did 
not believe that a superior should inquire about a man's specific reli- 
gious beliefs. 

This, in Mr. Cocutz' mind, I am afraid, has been transferred into 
something quite different. 

I would like to hasten to add that I do not think an atheist could 
do Mr. Roger Lyons' job, and I knew that he was not, and therefore 
I concurred in his appointment after having talked to him. He is a 
man of profound religious beliefs, and he has done a magnificent job 
in stepping up the religious output of the Voice. 

The Chairman. Did you hear the testimony of Mr. Lyons 

Mr. Kretzmann. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. To the effect that you had not asked him about 
whether he had any religious beliefs? Do I understand your testi- 
mony to be that you did ask him ? 

Mr. Kretzmann. When I was informed by Mr. Puhan that he 
was 

The Chairman. Is Mr. Lyons still here ? 

TESTIMONY OF ROGER LYONS, THE DIRECTOR OF RELIGIOUS 
PROGRAMING OF THE VOICE OF AMERICA— Resumed 

The Chairman. Mr. Lyons, I do not like to rely on my memory 
alone. Did you not testify that Mr. Kretzmann did not ask you 
whether or not you believed in God ? 

Mr. Lyons. He didn't ask me the question specifically, and he didn't 
say, "Mr. Lyons, do you believe in God?" That is true. 

I don't remember his asking me. He might have asked the question, 
and I don't remember his putting it that way. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

All right, proceed, Mr. Kretzmann. 

TESTIMONY OF EDWIN M. J. KRETZMANN, POLICY ADVISER OF 
THE VOICE OF AMERICA— Resumed 

Mr. Kretzmann. Wlien I was informed by Mr. Puhan that he was 
contemplating the appointment of Mr. Lyons to be director of reli- 
gious programs, I asked for an opportunity to interview him. I re- 
member it lasted some time, at least more than half an hour, in which 
I was trying to assure myself that this was the kind of a man with 
profound religious convictions who could run our religious programs, 
in which I took a very great and vital interest. 

The Chairman. Did you ask him whether he attended any church? 

Mr. Kretzmann. NoJ sir; I did not. I did not believe it was my 
job to ask him that. 

The Chairman. I do not mean that. I did not mean as to what 
church, but were you not interested in whether he attended some 
church or some synagogue? If you are hiring a man to head up the 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 309 

religious desk, would you not normally want to know whether he at- 
tended some church or not ? 

Mr. KjtETZMANN. I do not believe that is necessary, sir. I was con- 
vinced after talking to him that he was a man with profound religious 
convictions, a deep belief in God, and that was enough. 

The Chairman. Did you ask him whether he believed in God ? 

Mr. I^ETZMANN. Not Specifically. 

The Chairman. Well, now, why would you not ask that? 

Mr. Kretzimann. I think that that is a question that a man shouldn't 
ask another. 

The Chairman. You think you should not ask him that, if you are 
going to have him head up a religious desk ? We are talking about 
religious desk. You are dealing with the Creator. You are dealing 
with the belief in God. Did you not ask the man, "Do you believe in 
God ? Are you an atheist or an agnostic, or not ?" 

Mr. Kretzmann. No, sir ; but I do not believe it is necessary to ask 
the question in that blunt fasliion. As I say, I was convinced after 
talking to him. 

The Chairman. What did you ask him? You did not ask him 
whether he believed in God, and you did not ask him whether he at- 
tended any church. How did you convince yourself that he had this 
deep religious feeling? 

Mr. Kretzmann. I discussed with him his general outlook on life, 
and his attitude toward our religious programing, and his belief in the 
fact that this type of programing was a genuine and true projection 
of America, and that it would do a great deal to combat communism. 
These are the factors that we discussed. 

I have a great deal of skill sir, in interrogation, having done it dur- 
ing the war for many years ; and as an indirect way of getting at it, 
Avhich I think is perhaps better than a blunt question, I was convinced 
that he was a good man for that job after I had talked to him. 

The Chairman. Are there any questions? 

Senator Jackson. Did you ask him about his religious education? 

Mr. Ivretzmann. Yes; I remember he told me about his studies 
in Switzerland, and he told me about his studies in Columbia, and I 
did not go into gi-eat detail. But I was satisfied that he had concerned 
himself with religious problems in a very broad way. 

Senator Jackson. Who previously held that assignment? 

Mr. Kretzmann. The man immediately preceding him was a Mr. 
Wilbur, who was an elder in the Presbyterian Church and who was 
extremely satisfactory for this post, but had to leave us to go with 
a private broadcasting station, I believe in Washington. 

Senator Jackson. He had a background in religious training? 

Mr. Kretzmann. Mr. Wilbur, you mean ? 

Senator Jackson. Yes. He had been active in his church ? 

Mr. Kretzmann. Very active, and I assume that an elder in the 
Presbyterian Church has a good background. 

The Chairman. Was there any further statement you wanted to 
make ? 

Senator McClellan. I do not quite understand your not asking any 
questions about his belief in God. You talked to him about 30 min- 
utes, you said. 

Mr. Kretzman. Sir, I believe I asked him that question, but I didn't 
ask it to him that bluntly, "Do you believe in God ?" 



310 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Senator McClellan. I did not necessarily mean that bluntly, and 
I am simply trying to find out. You say you came to the conclusion 
that he liad a profound belief in religion and God. 

Mr. Kretzmann. Yes, sir. 

Senator McClellan. I am just wondering, since you apparently 
did not ask those questions or did not ask them bluntly, what did you 
ask him or what did he say that gave you that conviction? What 
gave you that belief? Can you give us anything? You just say, 
"I talked to him and came to that conclusion." Can you tell us' any- 
thing upon which you based that conclusion ? 

Mr. Kretzmann. I discussed his attitude toward life with him, and 
I discussed his philosophy toward life, and it was obvious that he was 
motivated by very profound spiritual ideals'. In this way I came to 
the conclusion, without asking the direct question, that he would ap- 
preciate the value of religious broadcasting and could do it very well. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

I have many questions that I wanted to ask, but you were allowed 
to come back today because you requested the opportunity to come 
down. We have a good deal to interrogate you on later, but we are 
not prepared to do it today. 

Mr. CoHN. Mr. Kretzmann, we also had some testimony here this 
morning from Dr. Cocutz regarding a meeting, a policy meeting of 
the Eastern European Division which took place on Friday at noon, 
and at which you presided. Do you recall such a meeting? 

Mr. Kretzmann. Yes, sir. It is held every day at noon. 

Mr. CoHN. Fine. Now, do you recall having in your hand a wire 
service dispatch of a statement by Secretary Dulles on the subject of 
congressional investigations, and on the subject of his attitude in not 
defending mistakes made by his predecessors? You know the one to 
which I refer. 

Mr. Kretzmann. I had it in my hand, and I read it to the meeting 
at the beginning of the meeting. 

Mr. Cohn. Did you characterize that statement as "most 
depressing"? 

Mr. Kretzmann. I believe the phrase I used was "rather 
depressing." 

Mr. Cohn. Did you think it was proper for you, as policy adviser of 
the Voice of America, a subsidiary to the Department of State, to 
characterize a statement by the Secretary of State in an official policy 
meeting as, "rather depressing" ? 

Mr. Kretzmann. May I be permitted to say why I considered it 
rather depressing? 

Mr. Cohn. Certainly. 

Mr. Kretzmann. I have no objection, as the Senator knows, to be- 
ing investigated by Congress. I put myself on record; I have co- 
operated with the investigators, and I have done everything they 
asked me to do. The part I referred to as "rather depressing" in the 
statement by the Secretary was the fact that the concept of the loyal 
civil servant seems to have been lost sight of — the civil servant who 
swears his allegiance to the United States Government and who, when 
there is a change in the administration, carries on serving as loyally 
the new administration as he did the old — and it was depressing to me 
that that concept was not recognized in his statement. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 311 

I might add here, sir, that on November 5, Fulton Lewis, Jr., criti- 
cized the Voice for broadcasting a very favorable commentary on the 
enormous victory of General Eisenhower in the presidential election, 
and he criticized us for it as being "turncoats." My comment at the 
time was, "What did he expect us to do? Keep on plugging for 
Truman?" 

The Chairman. Had the Voice been plugging for Truman ? 

Mr. Kretzmann. When he was our boss, yes, sir; it was his policy. 

Well, I think the Voice as a whole has been just as loyal to the new 
administration as it was to the old. 

Mr. CoHN". You consider it loyalty, in your capacity as chief policy 
adviser, at a meeting at which people under you on questions of 
policy are receiving instructions from you, and interpretations from 
you, to characterize a statement by Secretary Dulles as "rather de- 
pressing" ? 

Mr. Kretzmann. May I remind you first that these are classified 
meetings, in which I discuss very often fairly highly classified matter, 
and it was not generally expected that the remarks made in there 
would be made public. 

Secondly, this is a very definite morale problem for us in New York, 
where a great many people have been working themselves to death 
trying to do this job, and who feel that they aren't being supported, 
or that their efforts to wage psychological warfare are not being 
properly recognized by the present administration. This will come 
in time, I am sure. 

Mr. CoHN. And until that comes, you feel that it is proper for 
you in addressing the chiefs of these divisions to characterize the 
statement as you did ? 

By the way, I might ask you this : Did you also state, after making 
that statement, that that statement would not be used by the Voice 
of America ? 

Mr. Kretzmann. I did not so state. The statement was carried 
by the Voice of America. 

Mr. CoHN. I know it was carried, but I want to know if, after say- 
ing it was "rather depressing," you followed that immediately by 
saying, "We will not use it," or words to that effect ? 

I might say to you before you answer that Mr, Cocutz, or Dr. Cocutz, 
has testified under oath that you did so state. Do you deny that 
you made that statement? 

Mr. Kretzmann. It is possible that I said, "I wonder whether we 
should use this." As you know, I referred the matter then immedi- 
ately to my superiors in Washington. 

Mr. CoHN. I have traced the history of it, and I wonder if you will 
tell us whether you did say, "We will not use that statement" ? 

Mr. Kretzmann. I don't believe I made that statement that flatly. 

Mr. CoHN. And if Dr. Cocutz and other persons present at that 
meeting say you did make that statement, they are not telling the 
truth ? Is that your testimony ? 

]Mr. Kretzmann. I don't believe that I made that statement in that 
form. 

Mr. CoHN. Well, in what form do you think that you made it ? 

Mr. Kretzmann. We have not been, as a general rule, carrying news, 
on our VOA output to foreign countries, about the investigation. We 



312 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

felt that it might destroy the faith of our foreign audiences in the 
authority of the Voice. 

This confronted me with a new problem, and I wished to have back- 
ing from Washington on whether this should be carried. 

Mr. CoHN. Is it not a fact that you did not put it up to Washing- 
ton until Dr. Cocutz, General Barmine, and others present objected 
to your statement, and insisted that it be put up to Washington? 

Mr. Kretzmann. These matters are discussed in a group, in a con- 
fidential group, and the question was raised whether it should or 
should not be used. AVhether the statement was made by them or by 
me, that I would prefer to consult Washington in this instance, I don't 
recall. But these matters are arrived at by a meeting of the best 
minds in the shop. 

I then referred it to Washington, and the decision was left with 
me. They did not make any decision. Whereupon, I decided that 
we would carry it, and we did carry it. 

Mr. CoHN. 'My question still is, which I would like to get an answer 
to: Did you, after characterizing tliis as a "rather depressing state- 
ment," initially say that "We will not use it" ? 

Mr. Kretzmann. As I remember, my first statement was, "I would 
like to read this to you. I find it rather depressing. I would 
like not to discuss it." 

Mr. CoiiN. So you did say initially that you did not care to use it 
there ; we have that established, 

Mr. Kretzmann. I did not say that we did not care to use it. I 
said I didn't think we should discuss it in that meeting, where we had 
policy problems to discuss, but I w^anted them to know about it. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, after you made that statement, did General Bar- 
mine interpose an objection ? Did he or did he not? 

Mr, Kretzmann, I believe he raised the question whether we should 
not consider whether this should or should not be carried. 

Mr. CoHN. Excuse me. I might say for the record, Mr. Barmine is 
the Chief of the Kussian Service of the Voice of America, is he not? 

Mr. Kretzmann. That is correct. 

Mr. CoHN. I see. And did anybody else second his statement ? 

Mr. Kretzmann. A number of people did. 

Mr. CoHN. Was it not only after that that the matter was put up 
to Washington ? 

Mr. Kretzmann. That is correct, but I was as much in on that 
decision to ask Washington as anyone else in the room. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, did you tell Washington that you regarded this 
statement as "rather depressing"? 

Mr. Kretzmann. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CoHN. To whom in Washington did you tell that ? 

Mr. Kretzmann. I was trying to get Mr. McCardle, the Assistant 
Secretary for Public Affairs, but I was connected with Mr. Phillips, 
because Mr. McCardle was busy at the moment. 

Mr. CoHN. You spoke with Mr. Phillips in Washington, is that 
right? 

Mr. Kretzmann. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, let me ask you this : Mr. Kretzmann, were you in 
any way responsible for the broadcasts over the Voice of America 
last year which resulted in the Korean Government barring Voice 
broadcasts? 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 313 

Mr. Kretzmann. Well, as policy adviser, I am responsible for prac- 
tically everything that goes out. I was not immediately responsible. 
I happened to be in Washington on the day on which this incident 
took place, but I was certainly in touch with New York, and I knew 
that these broadcasts were going on. 

Mr. CoHN. Did they not go out in violation of State Department 
instructions? 

Mr. Kretzmann. I don't believe so. There was some misunder- 
standing on the telephone that day between New York and Washing- 
ton, and it has never been satisfactorily cleared up for me, even. 

Senator Symington. Were you 1 of the 2 people on the telephone? 

Mr. Kretzmann. No, sir. I happened to be in Washington on 
consultations, and these conversations took place between two others. 

Mr. CoHN. Were you there when they took place ? 

IVIr. Kretzmann. No. 

Mr. CoHN. Did you know about them? 

Mr. Kretzmanst. I heard about them later in the day, but the ver- 
sions we got on one end did not jibe with the versions we got on the 
other end, and it has never been settled as to exactly what was said. 

Mr. CoHN. Who was on the end in New York? Somebody who 
worked for you? 

Mr. Kretzmann. Mr. Gordon Knox, my deputy. 

Mr. CoHN. He is your deputy, is he not? 

Mr. Kretzmann. Yes. 

Mr. Cohn. Was he responsible for these broadcasts? 

Mr. Kretzmann. I would say "Yes," acting for me. 

Mr. CoHN. He was acting for you ? 

Mr. Kretzmann. Yes. 

Mr. Cohn. Was he acting with your appr<jval ? 

Mr. Kretzmann. Yes, insofar as I gave him the responsibility when 
I am not there myself. 

The Chairman. Did you approve of what he did? 

Mr. Kretzmann. No, sir ; I did not. 

The Chairman. You think it was a pretty serious mistake, do you 
not ? 

Mr. Kretzmann. Well, the actual broadcast that was involved 
quoted certain European press opinions on what was taking place at 
that time in Korea. 

The Chairman. Just to make it clear, what the broadcast consisted 
of was extremely adverse criticisni of the existing South Korean Gov- 
ernment, and as a result of that the South Korean Government ordered 
the broadcast suspended and denied all facilities for the Voice in 
South Korea ; is that not correct ? 

Mr. Kretzmann. Actually, as I remember the text of these broad- 
casts, they criticized the methods by which Syngman Rhee was then 
conducting the election, and it was not critical of Syngman Rhee or the 
South Korean Government. 

The Chairman. They were critical of what he was doing and not 
of him; was that right? 

Mr. Kretzmann. The European press was critical of the methods 
by which he was attempting to conduct the elections. 

The Chairman. Let us try to get one clearance today. There is no 
question but what your broadcasts beamed to South Korea over the 



314 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Voice's facilities was material extremely critical of Syngman Rhee, you 
say of his methods, just at a time shortly before the elections were held? 
There is no question about that, is there ? 

Mr, Kketzmann. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. And as a result of that, the South Korean Govern- 
ment denied facilities of the South Korean radios to the Voice ; is that 
correct ? 

Mr. I^ETZMANN. That is correct. 

The Chairman, Is that your idea of fighting communism, to attack 
the anti-Communist government? 

Mr. Kretzmann. No, sir. 

The Chairman. So that you do admit that it Avas a serious mistake? 

Mr. Kretzmann. Well, under the circumstances, where a great deal 
of criticism was being made by our own people in Korea, and others, 
of the methods being used, it was designee! to show that world opinion, 
not United States opinion, or our own comment, was critical of the 
methods. It was hoped that thereby some changes in the methods 
being used by Syngman Rhee could be brought about, 

I do not think that this was an attack on an anti-Communist fighter, 
for which I have the highest regard for Mr. Rhee, and I always have 
had. 

The Chairman. Mr, Rhee considered it an attack, did he not ? 

Mr, Kretzmann, I believe he did. I was in Korea shortly after 
that, and I did not talk to him about it, but I talked to the people who 
so interpreted it. 

The Chairman. He took it so strongly that he ordered that all of 
his radio facilities be denied to you, did he not? 

Mr. Kretzmann, That actual step was taken by the Director of 
Public Information in Mr. Rhee's Cabinet, I presume with Mr, Rhee's 
knowledge and consent, 

Th& Chairman, Mr. Kretzmann, do you think it is one of your 
functions in the Voice of America to interfere in the South Korean 
elections by criticizing Syngman Rhee and by publicizing European 
criticism of him, and bringing that to the South Korean people, with 
the apparent approval of the American people ? 

Mr. Kretzmann. No, sir, I do not believe it is our function, but 

Tlie CHAiR:\rAN. Don't you think it is highly improper ? 

Mr. Kretzisiann, It is a normal thing for us to carry comment on 
such a thing as the Korean elections. 

The Chairman. Did you carry any favorable comment on Syng- 
man Rhee ? 

Mr, Kretzmann, We were asked to balance it. 

The Chairman. Did you carry any favorable comment on those 
broadcasts about Synerman Rhee? 

Mr. Kretzmann. We did not. because we could not find any in 
either the American press or the European press at the time. 

The Chairman. So that the only material you carried was anti- 
Rhee material during that campaign? 

Mr. Kretzmann. I don't think I would so define it if the text would 
be laid before me. It was a criticism of the methods and not anti- 
Rhee material. 

Mr. CoHN. Mr. Kretzmann, I want to call your attention to a policy 
meeting which took place on the morning of August 6, 1952, a 9 : 30 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 315 

policy meetino:, attended by approximately 150 officials of the Voice 
of America. I want to ask you whether or not you made the following 
statement : 

It looks like Syngman Rhee is winning in Korea. I am not happy about it. 
I am beginning to wonder if the South Koreans know what they are doing. I 
don't mind so much about Syngman Rhee ; he is an old man ; he might not be 
around long. The one that worries me is his right-hand man, the one who im- 
posed this martial law and gave Rhee a chance to bypass the Korean Assembly 
and have his elections. If that man is elected, then good night. 

Mr. Kretzmann. I do not recall making such a statement. 

Mr. CoHN. Do you deny that you made such a statement? 

Mr. Kretzmann. I cannot deny it. 

Mr. CoHN. If you did not make it, I assume you could deny it. 

Mr. Kretzmann. Well, this was when, August 15 ? 

Mr. CoHN. It was August 6, 1952. 

Mr. Kretzmann. I don't recall making such a statement. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, this is an awfully serious statement. You are the 
chief policy adviser, speaking to 150 officials of the Voice of America 
about the broadcasts, and you come out here with a bitter attack on 
the head of the Korean Government, and you say you do not recall 
whether you made that statement or not. If you made it, you cer- 
tainly would recall making it, would you not ? 

Mr. Kretzmann. I do not recall it, and I don't believe I made it in 
that form in any event. 

Mr. CoHN. In what form do you think you made it? 

INIr. Kretzmann. It has long been evident to us that Mr. Rhee, while 
he is definitely on our side, and, as I say, that has been recognized in 
the anti-Communist struggle, he is also not very popular in other areas 
of the world. We have, therefore, been very careful, and we have to 
be careful, in not identifying him as an American puppet. That 
would in other areas of the world be detrimental to our foreign- 
policy aim. 

The Chairman. Why do you not beam the anti-Rhee program to 
other areas of the world ? Why do you beam them to South Korea ? 
Mr. Kretzmann, why do you spend the taxpayers' money beaming 
programs against the South Korean Government into South Korea? 
You say you found nothing favorable you could beam there. Tell 
us why. 

Mr. KJRETZMANN. Sir, the intentions of the program were to further 
the policy aims of the United States, which was hopeful that Mr. Rhee 
would adopt more democratic methods in returning to power. It was 
no intention to keep him from returning to power, and it was an 
intention of improving the methods by which he was so doing. 

Senator Symington. I want to get straight on this. Your concept 
of the Voice of America was that you should broadcast to the Presi- 
dent of South Korea, or about the President of South Korea, at the 
time of an election, things negative to the President of South Korea 
and the Korean Government, in order to mold the way that they are 
handling their government? You take that as a proper policy" pro- 
cedure of the Voice of America, a subordinate to the State Depart- 
ment? 

Mr. Kretzmann. No, sir. The purpose of the Voice of America is 
1 o further the policies of tlie United States. 



316 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Senator Symington. Were the policies of the United States as ex- 
pressed by the State Department and the executive branch of the Gov- 
ernment that you should criticize the South Korean Government in 
beamin<^ the broadcasts to South Korea ? 

Mr. Kretzmann. Well, it was not a criticism of the South Korean 
Government. It was a comment. Our efforts in our broadcasts are to 
e-how the areas to whom we broadcast what the rest of the world is 
thinking and saying about their events. It is a normal practice to try 
to focus world interest on their affairs. 

Senator Symington. I do not want to belabor it, but I would like to 
find out what you thought the result of it would be at this time. 

Mr. Kretzmann. Well, as I say, I did not pass on that particular 
script, and 

Senator Symington. But you are defending the general policy. So 
let us forget the particular script. What would be the advantage? 

Mr. Kretzmann. The only possible advantage in that script would 
have been to try to show the Korean people that there are more demo- 
cratic ways of achieving the same ends. There was no intention to 
keep Mr. Rhee from being reelected, but the methods that he w^as using 
at the time were somewhat shocking to our friends, many of them. 

Senator Symington. Let me ask you this question. The South 
Koreans were fighting with the Americans over there ; were they not ? 

Mr. Kretzmann. That is correct. 

Senator Symington. Did you balance what you might do to the 
morale of the South Korean Armies by broadcasting against their 
President and his activities, as against what advantages you might 
get from the United States in other parts of the world ? 

Mr. Kretzmann. We certainly clid balance it. And if you look at 
the Korean output over months, you will find that one of our major 
themes, every day, is to build up the morale of the Korean army. 

Senator Symington. Do you think by attacking the Korean Govern- 
ment you are building up the morale of their army ? 

Mr. Kretzmann. I do not believe we were attacking the Govern- 
ment, sir. 

Senator Symington. Have you any typical illustration of following 
out this line of policy with respect to anything that was beamed to 
Yugoslavia ? 

Mr. Kretzmann. Yes, sir. I think this will be a normal practice. 

Senator Symington. Have you criticized Tito in your beaming of a 
broadcast to Yugoslavia ? 

Mr. Kretzmann. We have criticized the methods by which certain 
elections take place, describing them as the one-party slate, not in our 
own words but using press comment to get this idea across. 

The Chairman. When did you last criticize the elections in Yugo- 
slavia? 

Senator Symington. I would like to see the records of that, to see 
if it is a consistent policy of the State Department to criticize foreign 
countries and the leaders of foreign countries. I would like to see that 
record. 

Mr. Kretzmann. I should describe this. This is a world-opinion 
round-up which is a regular feature of many of our programs, which 
tries to find comment from other areas of the world on problems that 
are indigenous to that particular country. It is using this comment 
in such a way as to achieve our basic aims. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 317 

I would be very happy to spread on the record hundreds of these 
scripts. 

Senator Symington. I think you know what we are getting at, but 
the point I am trying to make is, let us forget that a mistake was 
made, because everybody makes mistakes. The thing that worried 
me was that the Voice of America, in effect, takes on itself, and in 
testimony, the effort to establish policy in a field of this character. 

Mr. Kretzmann. No, sir, I don't believe the Voice takes it on itself. 
This was State Department policy on which we had directives to use 
certain world-opinion comment to rather indirectly put forth our 
ideas of the democratic way in which to carry on elections. We do 
this with Great Britain when they have an election. We use com- 
ment from all over the world on their methods and how they run an 
election, and so forth. 

The Chairman. Mr. Kretzmann, the Daily Worker at that time 
was extremely critical of Syngman Rhee, was it not? 

Mr. Kretzmann. I am sure they were. 

The Chairman. They thought his methods were all wrong, isn't 
that right? 

Mr. Kretzmann. I am sure they did. 

The Chairman. And he declared martial law, and the Daily Worker 
condemned that vigorously, did they not? 

Mr. Kretzmann. I am quite sure they did. I would have to go back 
to that. 

The Chairman. Every Communist sheet condemned him for that 
and condemned his methods, did they not? 

Mr. Kretzmann. That is right. 

The Chairman. You know tliat Rhee's claim was that the reason 
he had to declare martial law was because of the Communist infiltra- 
tion in certain areas. 

Mr. Kretzmann. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. Is that not riglit ? 

Mr. Kretzmann. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You decided that you would ape the Daily Worker 
and the Communist press and send all of this material into South 
Korea at the time Syngman Rhee was fighting for his political life ? 

Mr. Kretzmann. I am sure that the Daily Worker and other papers 
of that ilk were criticizing Rhee because he is anti-Communist. We 
were not. We were not criticizing him for that. 

The Chairman. You could not be that obvious, could you ? Doesn't 
it have the same effect when you criticize him and call him undemo- 
cratic and try to expose what you call his bad methods. And the 
only method you complain of was that he declared martial law when 
he found tremendous Communist infiltration into certain areas. I 
wonder why you took it upon yourself that you were justified in doing 
it. You were not in Korea, and you did not know whether he was 
right or wrong. 

Mr. Kretzmann. We had directives from the State Department, 
and we had reports that indicated that these devices had been invented 
to a large extent, and the facts were not correct. 

The Chairman. In answer to questions by counsel, I believe you 
said that this was not as a result of a State department directive, and 
that this was done in violation of a State Department directive. Now 
tell us the truth. Did the State Department direct you to beam this 



318 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

critical material to South Korea or did your man Knox decide that 
despite the State Department orders? 

Mr. Kretzmann. Let me correct one thin^ here. I never said this 
was in violation of a State Department directive. 

The Chairman. Was it in conformity with State Department direc- 
tives ? 

Mr. Kretzmann. There was a conversation on the telephone between 
my deputy in New York and Mr. Brad Connors, in Washington, in 
which the decision was made to carry this material. At the moment 
I was not in New York. This was a directive for us. 

The Chairman. Were you not informed by the State Department 
that this was a violation of their orders — that they did not favor what 
you had done? 

Mr. Kretzmann. That is right, sir, due to this confusion on what 
the instructions actually were. 

The Chairman. So that you do not say now that the State Depart- 
ment favored what you were doing? Even under Acheson they did 
not favor it, did they ? 

Mr. Kretzmann. Well, sir, I think it was a mistake about the type 
of material that should have been picked up, and, as I say, this con- 
fusion existed between the New York and Washington end of the line. 
It was done in good faith. 

Senator Symington. My questioning to you was because I thought 
that you did say that the voice was operating without the approval 
of the State Department. All I wanted to know was whether the 
voice took upon itself the question of deciding on major questions of 
policy of this character. 

I do think that the records would show, or perhaps I misunderstood 
you, that this was a mistake in the opinion of the State Department 
but was a policy which the voice had decided to adopt. 

Mr. Kretzmann. If it was a mistake, it arose because of a misunder- 
standing of the directive in this particular case. The voice takes its 
policy from the Department. 

Senator Symington. That is what I thought. That is what I would 
think. 

The Chairman. You know Khee brought to the attention of the 
United Nations that there was a Communist plot trying to unify North 
and South Korea, and harming our troops over there, and don't you 
admit now that you were contributing to that plot when you were also 
trying to undercut Ehee? The Communists had to get rid of Khee 
if their plot was to succeed. The Voice of America was beaming all 
of this tripe that was being put out about Khee by the Daily Worker 
and other papers into South Korea, and it got so bad that Khee said, 
"We will cut off the radio facilities." Is there anything mysterious 
about that and isn't that what you did ? 

Mr. Kretzmann, No, sir; we did not do that. We never beamed 
anything that the Daily Worker said to any area. 

The Chairman. What is Bertram Wolfe's job? 

Mr. Kretzmann. He is Chief of the Ideological Advisory Unit. 

The Chairjian. And you know he has been anti-Communist and 
anti-Marxist since 1929; is that right? 

Mr. I^ETZMANN. I said that I knew that he was an anti-Communist 
since 1929. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 319 

The Chairman. Well, do you think he is a Marxist? 

Mr. Kretzmann. No, sir ; I do not. 

The Chairman. When do you think he became anti-Marxist? 

Mr. Kretz]mann. That is a question I have never discussed with him. 

The Chairman. Well, you are head of policy. Do you think he is 
anti-Marxist now ? 

Mr. Kretzmann. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Well, have you any idea when he became anti- 
Marxist ? 

Mr. Kretzmann. Well, in his scripts he certainly is anti-Marxist, 
too. 

The Chairjvian. You say he became anti-Communist in 1929, but 
not anti-Marxist, and now will you tell us the clili'erence? 

Mr. Kretzmann. Well, I think anti-Communist in our language 
means a person who has the full appreciation of the dangerous threat 
of the totalitarian form which communism has taken under the Stalin 
dictatorship. Anti-Marxist means a rejection of the Marxist prin- 
ciples that were outlined in his works. 

The Chairman. Is it not true that he broke with the Communist 
Party in 1929, and as far as you knew did not break with it ideologic- 
ally, and you said, "Oh, no ; he broke with it ideologically and he is 
no longer a Communist"? 

Is it your testimony now that you think he remained loyal to the 
teachings of Marx when he broke with the party in 1929? 

Mr. Kretzmann. I think that that question would be better directed 
to Mr. Wolfe. As far as I know now, he is both anti-Marxist and 
anti-Communist, and extremely etfective in our output. 

The Chairman. What do you personally think about Marxism? 

Mr. Kretzmann. I reject it entirely as a theory on which modern 
social improvements can be made. 

The Chairman. On the script bearing your name, we find the state- 
ment to the eltect that Marxism is the "fig leaf of respectability" used 
by Stalin. Would j^ou call it a "fig leaf of respectability"? 

Mr. Kretzmann. This I believe is the script that was written by 
Mr. Cocutz. 

The Chairman. Would you call it a "fig leaf of respectability" ? 

Mr. Kretzmann. I would not, sir. 

The Chairman. Would you say that anyone who did should be 
working in your unit, directing policy ? 

Mr. Kretzmann. In certain areas of tlie world where you have 
Socialist Parties, in northern Europe and central Europe, who still 
believe in an evolutionary form of Marxism, they are our strongest 
friends and supporters, and to condemn Stalinism as a form of Marx- 
ism would be a mistake in that area, because it would weaken our 
effectiveness. We condemn Stalinism, and roundly, and by using the 
fact that in their attitude there may be something good in Marxism. 

The Chairman. Will you come back to my question ? You said 
that you would not consider Marxism as a "fig leaf of respectability." 
My question was, would you think that anyone who did think that 
Marxism is a cloak of respectability should be working in your Policy 
Section. 

Mr. Kretzmann. I should think that you should give Mr. Knox a 
chance to defend his own statements. 

29708— 53— pt. 4 7 



320 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

The Chairman. We are giving you a chance now, as policy chief, 
to tell us whether or not you think a man who believes that Marxism 
is a cloak of respectability should be on your policy staff. 

Mr. Kretzmann. Sir, I have full confidence in Mr. Knox, and I 
know his thinking in and out, and this statement is being twisted into 
a sense in which he never meant it. 

The Chairman. The question is : Do you think that anybody who 
feels that Marxism is a cloak of respectability should be working on 
your policy staff? That applies to Mr. Knox or Mr. Jones. I am 
asking you that question. 

Mr. Kretzmann. No one on my policy staff believes that, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you think, and I am going to make you answer 
this — do you think that anyone who feels that Marxism is a "fig 
leaf" or a cloak of respectability should be on your policy staff? 

Mr. Kretzmann. If he believes that generally, no, sir. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. Cohn. I have quite a few more questions, but we have two more 
witnesses. 

The Chairman. This witness is here on his own request today, and 
so I am going to withhold further questioning until later. 

May I say, Mr. Kretzmann, there will be considerable testimony 
concerning your part, and whenever you feel that you want to come 
down and answer that part that has been put into the record, we will 
try to accommodate you. 

Mr. Kretzmann. Thank you. 

The Chairman. The next witness is Mrs. Alice Patricia Sheppard. 
Eaise your right hand. 

In this matter now in hearing before the committee, do you solemnly 
swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 
help you God ? 

Mrs. Shephard. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF ALICE PATRICIA SHEPHARD, AN EMPLOYEE OF 
THE VOICE OF AMERICA IN NEW YORK 

The Chairman. May I express the thanks of the committee to you 
for coming down on such short notice. I understand you were re- 
quested to come down sometime this afternoon, and you are here. 

Will you give us your full name ? 

Mrs. Shephard. Alice Patricia Shephard. 

Mr. CoHN. How do you spell your last name? 

Mrs. Shephard. S-h-e-p-h-a-r-d. 

Mr. CoHN. Where are you employed, Mrs. Shephard ? 

Mrs. Shephard. At the Voice of America, 224 West 57th Strefet. 

Mr. CoHN. How long were you employed there? 

Mrs. Shephard. In New York since 1944. 

Mr. CopiN. Have you had occasion to know Mr. Roger Lyons, the 
Chief of the Religious Desk? 

Mrs. Shephard. Yes, I have. 

Mr. CoHN. Have you had any discussions with Mr. Lyons concern- 
ing his religious philosophy? 

Mrs. Shephard. Yes, sir ; I did at one time. Over a period of time 
we discussed religion quite a good deal. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 321 

Mr. CoHN. As a result of those discussions, can you tell us whether 
or not he believes in God ? 

Mrs. Shephard. Why, I cannot tell you if he believes in God now, 
but at the time that I was going with Mr. Lyons, I don't believe that 
he believed in God then. He was going through a very difficult 
period. He was going to an analyst, and he was very confused at the 
time. 

Senator Symington. What is that? 

Mrs. Shephard. He was going to an analyst. 

Senator Symington. Of what ? 

Mrs. Shephard. A psychoanalyst. And whether he was trying to 
find his way to God or not, I don't know. But at that time he had no 
belief in God. 

Mr. CoHN. At that time he did not believe in God ? 

Mrs. Shephard. No. 

Mr. CoHN. And when was that, when was the latest date? 

Mrs. Shephard. Well, that was between 1944 and the end of 1946. 

Mr. CoHN. I have no further questions of the witness. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Cohn. Is Mr. Strong here ? 

The Chairjsian. In the matter now in hearing before the committee, 
do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the wdiole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Strong. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF ALLEN STEONG, A PRODUCER-ANNOUNCER WITH 
THE VOICE OF AMERICA IN NEW YORK 

Mr. CoHN. Tell us your name ? 

Mr. Strong. Allen Strong. 

Mr. CoHN. We want to thank you, too, for coming down nere on 
such short notice. 

Where do you work ? 

Mr. Strong. The Voice of America, 224 West 57th Street, New York 
City. 

Mr. CoHN, How long have you been with the Voice? 

Mr. Strong. I was there twice. I went there in 1942 with the OWl, 
and I went there again about 4 years ago. 

Mr. CoiiN. What is your present position with the Voice ? 

Mr. Strong, I am a producer-announcer. 

Mr. CoHN. You are a producer-announcer with the Voice of 
America ? 

Mr. Strong. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CoHN. Have you ever or do you know Roger Lyons, the head 
of the religious desk? 

Mr. Strong. I have known him for some years. 

Mr. CoHN. Have you ever had any occasion to discuss any script 
with Mr. Lyons ? 

Mr. Strong. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CoHN. You have? 

Mr. Strong. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Cohn. Is there any one in particular? 

Mr. Strong. Yes ; one very recent one. 



322 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

Mr. CoHN. Did that involve the use of a term referring to a divine 
being ? 

Mr. Strong. It did. 

Mr. CoHN. Do you have that script here ? 

Mr. Strong. Yes. 

Mr. CoHN. Would you read us the terms to which I refer? 

Mr. Strong. At the opening of the script, it was a script based on 
the American Legion "back to God" show, on which Mr. Eisenhower, 
and Nixon, and a rabbi, and Negro chaplain appeared. "Back to 
God," it was called, documentary. 

Senator Symington. Can't you get the word "Democratic" in there 
somewhere ? 

Mr. Strong. I beg your pardon. The sentence to which he ob- 
jected — I was producing the program, and he is the religious re- 
porter of the Voice, and he was on loan to us. 

Mr. CoHN. When you say "he," you mean Mr. Lyons ? 

Mr. Strong. Yes, sir. And so I called him and said, "You are to 
go to the studio," and he said, "O. K." He read the script, and he 
said, "I take exception to this first sentence." 

Mr. CoHN. Read it. 

Mr. Strong. Or the second one. 

To tell the whole story we would have to go back in time and space to that 
nameless first man who looked heavenward and had knowledge of a divine force 
greater than man, better than man, wiser than man. 

He looked it over, and he said, "I won't read that," So I said, as 
the producer, "Why do you object to it?" He said, "Call the writer." 
And so we did. And Mr. Edward Rosen who wrote the script came, 
and they discussed it rather heatedly. I said, as the producer, "You 
read what is written or you don't read anything at all." And he said, 
"You have got to strike it out and then I will read it." 

I said, "You have got to read it, unless you have some real objection, 
and you go upstairs with it." He said, "All right, I will read it." 
When we got to the studio 10 minutes later and he sat there waiting 
to go on the air, he said, "I can't read this." 

So I asked him again why he would not read it, and he would not 
give me any idea. He said, "It is just drivel, and it is not based on 
fact." 

Mr. CoHN. That particular sentence? 

Mr. Strong. Yes. And I said, "We will get somebody else to do 
it," and he left. 

Mr. Cohn. Did he tell you if this one sentence referring to the 
existence of a divine being, greater or wiser than any human, was 
deleted, he would then read the script? 

Mr. Strong. He did say at one point before he came upstairs, but 
,hen afterward, he said he didn't like the whole thing, the idea of the 
whole program, and he would not put his voice on the record. 

Mr. Cohn. How long ago did this happen ? 

Mr. Strong. I will tell you exactly when it happened. It was 
February 1. 

Mr. Cohn. February 1? 

Mr. Strong. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Cohn. You mean just about 1 month ago? 

Mr. Strong. Yes, sir. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 323 

The Chairman. Let me ask you : Was there any question in your 
mind that the reason for his objection to the script was because it 
referred to a divine being? It that the reason he objected to it? 

Mr. Strong. I have my opinion, but, of course, you cannot judge 
the man's mind. 

The Chairman. Did he make that clear? If not, this has no 
special significance, and if he did, we want to know. Was he object- 
ing to this because it made reference to a divine being? 

Mr. Strong. He did not say that exactly; no. 

The Chairman. He said that was based upon supposition and not 
fact, did you say? 

Mr. Strong. In so many words, yes. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you this : How long have you been with 
the Voice yourself? 

Mr. Strong. Under the State Department about 4 years. 

The Chairman. How well do you know Mr. Lyons ? 

Mr. Strong. As an announcer I worked with him over a period of 
probably 3 or 4 years during the war, OWI, and here for 3 or 4 years. 

The Chairman. You know, it is a very unpleasant and disagreeable 
task for a committee to be checking into a man's background to ques- 
tion whether he is religious or not, and normally we would not be 
concerned about that, but in view of the fact he is head of this 
religious desk, we are. 

Would you say from your knowledge of him, your acquaintance with 
him, would you think he has any strong religious convictions of any 
kind? 

Mr. Strong. Well, you get to know a man pretty well if you are 
thrown together with him, working with him on the air, and in an- 
nouncers' lounges ; and I am a Roman Catholic, and to my perhaps 
myopic view, I did not think he was very religious. 

The Chairman. I do not mean to ask whether he believed in the 
same thing you did. 

Mr. Strong. I don't mean that either. 

The Chairman. When was the program to be produced ? 

Mr. Strong. To be broadcast on the 19th of February last. 

Tlie Chairman. Of this year ? 

Mr. Strong. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And this was a dialog between the President and 
Vice President and certain chaplains? 

Mr. Strong. Not a dialog. We introduced the program and then 
played cuts, preceded by live talk by the announcer, introducing Mr. 
Eisenhower and Mr. Nixon and the Rabbi and the Negro chaplain, 
and some music on it. 

The Chairman. I think we will have that marked as an exhibit. 

It will be received. 

(The script was marked "Exhibit No. 31" and may be found in the 
files of the subcommittee.) 

The Chairman. We want to thank you very much. 

Senator Symington. I would like to ask the lady to come back to 
the stand for a moment. 



324 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

TESTIMONY OF ALICE PATRICIA SHEPHARD, AN EMPLOYEE OF 
THE VOICE OF AMERICA IN NEW YORK— Resumed 

Senator Symington. With respect to your testimony about the faith 
of Mr. Lyons, you said at one time you were going with him, is that 
true? 

Mrs. Shephard. Yes, sir. 

Senator Symington. Were you engaged to him ? 

Mrs. Shephard. No, I was not. 

Senator Symington. What do you mean by "going with him" ? 

Mrs. Shephard. I came to New York in 1944 and Roger was one of 
the first people I met at the office, and he was very nice, and he took me 
out, and he was quite a "brain" and I was not, so he was introducing 
me to books and things, and I was quite fascinated by the whole thing. 

Senator Symington. You would not have your testimony colored 
by the fact he did not go out with you any longer ? 

Mrs. Shephard. Oh, no. 

Senator Symington. I want to be very frank about it. 

Mrs. Shephard. Oh, positively not. 

Senator Symington. You are not in the position of a jilted lady or 
anything like that ? 

Mrs. Shephard. Oh, no. My gosh, no. Roger was going to Switzer- 
land to study with Jung, and while he was gone, Roger got married, 
and I got married. I am very happy about the whole thing. 

Senator Symington. I thought that we ought to clear that up. 

Mrs. Shephard. I am not disgruntled ; no. 

The Chairman. We will adjourn until 10:30 in the morning. 

(Whereupon, at 5:45 p. m. the committee recessed until 10:30 
a. m., Tuesday, March 3, 1953.) 



APPENDIX 



Exhibit 17 
Memorandum 

August IS, 1952. 
To : IBS— Mr. Foy D. Kohler 
Through : IRP— Mr. A. Puhan/Mr. G. Dooher 
From : John Cocutz— IRP 
Subject: Training Program Relating to Communism 

I submit for your consideration the following suggestion, with the hope that it 
may strengthen the operations of the Voice of America. 

The suggested plan concerns a minimum training of some of the employees 
of the VOA in the main facts about the Communist movement. It is desirable to 
have employees who are committed emotionally and morally against communism 
and who have a good knowledge of their target areas. But this knowledge is not 
enough for those who are in the front line of our ideological battle. We are fight- 
ing communism itself. Therefore, an intelligent, factual knowledge of the Com- 
munist movement, of its goals and methods, of its beliefs and weapons is neces- 
sary. We are facing an evil and ruthless, but highly trained, propaganda machine 
and we cannot overdo our preparation for a more efficient counterattack. In a 
military battle, a knowledge of the enemy, of its methods and weapons is consid- 
ered essential ; the same holds true in the ideological battle. 

The training program should consist of lectures and discussions on the follow- 
ing topics, at least : 

I. AN OUTLINE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST MOVEMENT 

These lectures should present the origin and development of the Communist 
movement, with accent on its activities in the present century. The worldwide 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 325 

organization of the Communist Party, with its different branches, should be sur- 
veyed. Their links with Moscow should be explained. Its main leaders — past 
and present — in Europe (includins satellite countries), Asia, and other parts oi! 
the world, should be discussed. The main purpose of these lectures should be to 
give the participants exact information about the main historical facts of the 
Communist movement. 

II. THE MAIN BELIEFS OF COMMUNISM 

These lectures and discussions will give the participants at least an elementary 
understanding of the main concepts of communism. A few of the main, but 
smaller writings of the Communist thinkers should be analyzed and criticized. 
(Communist Manifesto of Marx, State and Revolution of Lenin, Foundations and 
Problems of Leninism by Stalin, Dialectical and Historical Materialism by Stalin, 
Stalin's theory of Linguistics, etc., might be some of the booklets considered. For 
the Far East, at least some basic writings of Mao Tse-tung should be surveyed.) 
The purpose would be to elucidate and criticize Communist doctrines which deal 
with religion, social structure and programs, economics, government, art, 
science, etc. 

For example, Stalin's theory of linguistics, class concepts, dictatorship of 
proletariat, collectivist socialism, etc., now occupy much of the Communist think- 
ing and planning. Our editors and writers should be able not only to understand, 
but also to refute them easily. It should be shown that the Communists consider 
their theories from a practical viewpoint, that is, as a guide to action. Therefore, 
by knowing their thoughts and beliefs we can at least partly predict their future 
actions. 

III. COMMUNIST METHODS OF PROPAGANDA AND REVOLUTION 

The accent should be on the recent past. Examples should be taken from the 
main parts of the world. Some writings of Lenin and Stalin on the sulijects 
should be analyzed. The concepts of Communist strategy and tactics should be 
understood. Special tactics directed to specific areas and situations could be 
analyzed. It should also be demonstrated how the Comnumists use ideas in which 
they do not believe, for propaganda purposes — e. g., the peace campaign. 

The lecturers should be cimipetent people who know the facts and know how to 
teacli them. All the lectures should be prepared in advance and approved by the 
proper authorities. 

The lectures should contain extensive bibliographies of primary and secondary 
sources. As the lectures will have to be introductory in their nature these bibliog- 
raphies could be used in further individual study, which should be encouraged. 
They could also be used by the participants, later on, in their work when they 
meet certain problems for a^ hich they do not possess the immediate answer. lu 
other words, the training should prepare the participants for further individual, 
problem-solving research. 

The study groups could be organized on an area basis, whenever desirable. The 
meeting times of these sessions would take into consideration the off-hours of the 
participants. Two or three sessions a week would suffice. 

The whole program should be built on an experimental basis, with a lookout 
for revisions, changes, and improvements based on experience. 

It is hoped that such studies will improve the substance of our scripts, com- 
mentaries, and other writings ; will help us to avoid shooting in the dark and in 
the wrong place and to aim better at our real target ; will give us a better sense 
of direction and urgency ; will improve the overall efficiency of our operations. 
Incidentally, in some places they will help the participants to better identify the 
Communist line and activity when it is disguised. 

It is hoped that something deeper will be achieved. It is a known fact that the 
press and the radio are only two of many facets of the overall Communist plan 
to "create the new Communist man," especially out of the new generations. The 
schools, the labor and political organizations, and many other agencies and insti- 
tutions are used to "purge" the young generations of "bourgeois ideas" and to 
make them base their thinking on entirely new, Communist, assumptions in order 
to completely conquer their minds and hearts. It is our duty to attack commu- 
nism at these levels, too. We hope that these lectures will better equip us to 
neutralize and, if possible, annihilate the whole range of the Communist indoc- 
trination machine. 

On the other hand, with these lectures, we would not initiate anything new. 
Most large business organizations have training programs for their employees, 
appropriate to their function, in order to improve their efficiency. The different 



326 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

branches of the armed services now conduct training programs in communism. 
In some of these programs I participated as a lecturer, in connection with the 
southeast area. I am also informed that the Psychological Warfare Branches of 
the Army and Navy give 6-month courses on communism and related topics. 
Many universities and high schools are introducing this kind of course with the 
idea of giving our people a better understanding of our enemy. In fact, I have 
had i>ersonal experience in this connection, having given courses in Communist 
theory and practice at the University of Georgia for the last 3 years. 

On the negative side, the United States Department of State cannot afford to 
have its employees show a lack of precise knowledge in the field of their immediate 
mission and activity. 

This plan is tentative. H is hoped that its study will stimulate ideas for its 
improvement, and if the suggestions contained here are found desirable and use- 
ful I shall be happy to discuss it further. 

cc : D'Alessandro 
Macy 

Helfenstein 
Taliaferro 

IBS : IRP : JTCocutz : hh 



Exhibit No. 18 

Here is the place to mention the role of religion in fighting communism. Un- 
doubtedly the western civilization has its roots in the Hebrew Christian tradi- 
tion and in Greek-Roman thinking. It is also true that religious faith is the 
strongest force to uphold the hope of people who suffer under oppression, and 
to help them not to yield either to cynicism or to evil teachings. 

The American information program and agencies can do the following things 
on a religious level : 

1. Spread news about religious events on a worldwide basis. This fact itself 
will show the vitality of religious forces against communism. 

2. Expose religious persecution behind the Iron Curtain and reveal the schemes 
by which the Communists take over religious organizations and use them for 
their own purposes. The American belief and practice of religious freedom 
should be presented in contrast. 

3. Analyze and expose the main Communist atheistic and materialistic doc- 
trines which contradict any religious belief and which demand the destruction 
of all religions. This expose will help counteract the shrewd Communist propa- 
ganda which tries to present the Communist Party as friendly to religion. 

4. Analyze and discuss sympathetically those tenets which are common to 
most religions. There is a vast religious wealth of moral and spiritual teach- 
ings which is common to most religions. These teachings should be used 
effectively. 

5. Report and broadcast religious services and sermons. In this respect we 
should be careful not to hurt the religious sensibilities of any of our listeners. 

6. Report the main activities of the religious life of the people of the United 
States. Here, too, we must refrain from trying to sell our religions to the out- 
side world, but we should report conscientiously the main events, trends, and 
ideas which make up the religious life of the American people. Today, when 
the "hate America" campaign tries to picture the American citizen in the black- 
est colors, one of the best ways to counteract it is to present the American men 
and women a^ going to their respective places of worship and praying in humility 
to God. A good picture of the role which the religious and spiritual forces play 
in the American social life will offset the false picture of a materialist, selfish, 
militarist man. 

This reporting of American religious scene can be made very effective by 
placing it in its historical perspective, and showing also the contributions of 
different American denominations to the charitable, educational, sanitary, and 
cultural life in America. 



s 



I :- 



i I 



c to 



p. u 

CO « 

« ^ 




•g ^ 



• 9 

n TJ 
« 

n i 



I Sf 



s 
>> 

V 

■P 

I 
I 

■s ^ 

G -P 

I fi 
i! I 



1 a 



p. J3 

s : 

n « 

S 2 

n 0) 

A ^ 



iJ A 



rt c 



-• g 



^ -g 



8 5 



•H Fh 



§ 1 

«i 
>. 1-1 



^ ^ I 



t^ max 

■P <tt Pi (d -p o • 

-P to h -P rH 

V)? O V-P-PT) A 

P,o»HX:njp.<d«H 

v 9 p. -p a « o 

,o « V o a> -P C 

a^iOibon-pn-H 
«»x:qh'PSp 
sa-p-paoho. 






a 3 



O ft' 

■p rt 1 <f-i 

o o 
o 

rH ml ti 

§• 5 § 

^ o § 

Vl +* ^ 

o ♦* 

M U 
MSB 

« «H -H 

M bfl -P 

M C M 

a P -H 



(3 



■H -P 

II 






3 S 

I I 



5 5 

n « 

*H Pi 

S I 



2 1 a 



8 



^ "S 8 
8 » 

I 



?? 5 



o o 



I I 



fe4' - O 



I 



I 

I 

5il 






s s 



^ R 



!^ 



P ID 



i « 

5 a 



i S 



5 a 

^ 1 

5 a 

s 8 

■P 0) 

e (u 

■H 



U CO 

r-l B 



% i 1 



^ "H 



5 5 



5- 5 



I a 



t g 



Id g 



^ t 



11 % ^ 



•H ^ 
CO o 



I I 

p. > 



5 a» 

§ I 



O 0) 






i s I 



< K 






■». 

■■1 

§ 

o 

'J 





■> 
a 



A j 

i I 1 

tt» O • i 



a 

KT O 

(p 9 CI. 

e>9 f4 » 



s 






•^ ^ t 

« t I 

n H 

r- t) (D 

i * 5 

^ 1 ^ 

d O 

M -p a> 



. I !:- 



O 14 M 

0) £ 

P. « :3 

■H M td 

W 0) 

h ^ -P 

5 ° JU 

(0 n a 

p w a 

O 0) o 

•O M 

O Vi 

H U O 

S * B 

O n O 

" S :i 

H iH nJ 

H O 



B H 






^ s s 




«l -H 




H X P, 




a ma 
Mar 
ununa 




. w 




C >> 




Is* 




** p. c 




0) O 03 




F^ f^ U 




i '^ E 




. 5 :; 




•H 5 § 




■H P, O 




M U 


c 


-Mar 
n of 
hat 


^ 


o 


1 O 'P 




0) -rt 


M 


s t; 3 


▼4 


£ 


^ 2 S 


Vl 


■p «H 


o 


5 s ^ 


ID 


s -^ s 


« 


o « 


•§ 


^ A -p 



il 



lix^m-^ 



<•* A? 



« « 






5 J 



w a « . 

•H O T) C to 

g :Ei g I ^ 

O (0 CIS 



B o 
o 

5 5 









o 



5 5 



§ 



33 ^ 



o a 



•-4 
A is 



§ ^ 



cd t4 

r-l 

2 t: 



o 

•a 



cs o f 

5 ^. <w 



t) a a 

-o +* o 

»< -w ,o 

a ct5 u 

o ^ a 

o o ^ 

& -s ^ 



G 5 






i I 



^ 5 



§ « 



^ 2 

O V) 



in 



1 $ 
g « 

l-t 

I 3 



8 ; 

li 

» r 

"H ! 

at s 



"^ S 



.3 



O V) 






K 









5 bO 



2 § 



« -p .a 



S ^ 



I 5 



1 '4 



I 11 

i A S5 1 ,- 4 



i V! 



I i 






i ''.-. 



V< 



'>1' 



t 



tfi O O <• 



"B 



f 



c.f 



it) 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 327 

Exhibit No. 24 

Through : NAO — Mr. Alva M. Meyers, Jr. September 20, 1951. 

IP.D— Alfred Puhan 

IBD — Michael Ries Attention : Messrs. Pearson and Cohen 

Media Productions Voucher— Contract #SCC-la-2076 

We received from Media Productions, Inc., a voucher and breakdown of costs 
dated September 12, 1951, for Program #3, 4, 5, and 6 in the "Ici New York" 
series. This totaled $1,876.90. 

As a result of a conversation with Mr. T. Edward Hambleton of Media, a re- 
vised breakdown of costs was received from the latter, dated September 13th. 
The revised total was $1,676.58. 

In addition, we received from Mr. Cohen on September 17th the following 
material to substantiate Media's claim for the indicated sums : 

Program #3 — Pictures of Hollywood : 

1 Script $250.00 

8 Recordings of rough material 616. 00 

Program #4 — Indians : 

12 Commercial Discs (10") ] 

1 Commercial Album (4 discs) (10") l [ $97.50 

3 Original Acetates (10") J 

Program #5 — Trucking: 

1—30 min. Tape of rough material $60. 00 

GV2 Typewritten Pages of Research (story outline) 100. 00 

In consultation with Mr. Auberjonois of the French Unit, we have come to the 
following conclusions about the above-listed claims : 

Program #3 

1. The claim of $250.00 for the script is justified. 

2. The claim of $616.00 for production, recording and editing is unjustified. 
The evidence as submitted on the 8 records does not warrant this claim at all. 
All of the material is in a highly rough stage and shows no evidence of editing at 
all. The studio and field recording charge of $300.00 is allowable, but nowhere 
is there evidence of 11 hours of editing and 9 hours of assembly time ($316.00). 

Program #-'f 

1. The claim for the recordings is justified. 
Program #5 

1. The claim for the tape recording and the research is justified. 
No material was submitted in support of Program #6. 

The Overseas Services Section feels a total of $807.50 for Programs #3, 4 and 5 
is justified by the evidence submitted. The sum of .$284.40 for travel and mis- 
cellaneous charges for Programs #3, 4, and 5 would also appear to be in order. 
The claimed sum of $211.18 for Overhead and Profit for Programs #3, 4, and 5 
is justified ; this latter represents 15% of proven outlay and thus is in line 
with Media's original breakdown and our understanding. 

All of the written and recorded material submitted by Media is being turned 
over the French Unit for disposition. 

Attached please find copies of the letter and claim statement dated September 
13, 1951, submitted by Media Productions, Inc. 
Enclosures : 

Cpy Itr dtd 9/13/51 from Media. 
Cpy statement (amended) dtd 9/13/51 from Media, 
cc : Puhan 
Evans 

Aubjerjonois 
Gaines 
IE: IBD : NRies : rvt 



328 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM ; 

Exhibit No. 25 

Media Productions, Inc. j 

New York 19, N. Y. I 

Statement , 

(Amended) i 

Date : September 13, 1951. Media Project No. 25. 

Contract No. SCC-la-2076. 

Program No. 3. Pictures of Hollywood : 

Script 250. 00 

Production : Studio & field recording 15 hrs. @ 20. per hr___ 300. 00 
Editing : 

Editing 11 hrs. @ 14. per hr 154. 00 

Assembly time, inc. playback, 9 hrs. @ IS. per hr 162. 00 

Shipping charges 9. 15 I 

Carton .25 I 

Travel 25.00 j 

Overhead & Profit 135.06 

1, 035. 46 i 

Program No. 4. Indians : | 

Travel : Taos, Santa Fe, Denver, Anadarko — 4 days @ 50. 

per day 200.00 I 

Recordings 97. 50 i 

Overhead & Profit 44. 62 ; 

342.12 I 

Program No. 5. Trucking: i 

Preliminary research 100. OO i 

Field recording 6 hrs. @ 10 60. 00 \ 

Travel 50. 00 i 

Overhead & Profit 31.50 i 

241. 50 

Program No. 6. San Francisco : ; 

Preliminary research 25. 00 

Travel 25. 00 

Overhead & Profit 7.50 

— 57. 50 i 

Total 1, 676. 58 

TEH by D. 

Exhibit No. 28 ' 

Feibkuary 1, 1950. ' 

Alfred M. Puhan 
Fernand Auberjonois 

Ctjts in WAE and PO Funds 

The proposed cuts in WAE and PO funds which are to take effect during the 
third quarter of the present fiscal year affect funds already earmarked for future 
programs. 

It is my understanding that the last minute revisions mentioned in the memo- 
randum read to all Unit Chiefs are final. However, I take the liberty to reopen 
the discussion, and to question seriously the advisablity of further weakening 
our output to France. When previous cuts were ordered, I complied with orders, 
but pointed out (my memorandum of December 19, 1949), that the funds at our ; 
disposal were already ridiculously small. l 

As T^nit Chief, I assume responsibility for French language programs, and 
especially for our daily relay. As a professional broadcaster, I cannot assume I 
responsibilities for program changes that affect not only my own standing, but 
the prestige of the Voice of America and our relationship with the field. 



STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 329 

Before proceeding with the cancellation of 16 featured broadcasts, I wish to 
clear up some points which seem to me both disturbing and embarrassing : 

1. It would appear that when Unit Chiefs were requested to prepare their 
budgets for the third quarter of the present fiscal year, these budgets were ap- 
proved at higher levels. As a result, the French Unit made certain commitments. 
This means 

a. That our regular commentaries (by "specialists") which had been 
sharply reduced, have been announced in the French press (see attached 
schedule ) . 

b. That if we cancel the few that we can still afford, we shall lose an 
important part of our audience (see Betty Wason report of January 23, 
1950, airmailed from Paris) . 

2. If, as the memorandum read to us seems to indicate, the new and unfore- 
seen reductions in our meager funds are justified because of our need of money 
for "special projects," it is important that each Unit be informed of the nature 
of the special pi'ojects and the manner in which they might fill up the gaps left 
as a result of cancellation of our regular commentaries. In other words I would 
like to know : 

a. How many "special programs" will be featured on "Ici New York" dur- 
ing February and March. 

b. The length and nature of these programs, so that we can schedule 
them. 

c. Whether they will be acceptable to the field and to the station that 
relays us in France. (Since we have been coordinating our activities with 
USIS in Paris and with RDF, I feel that unilateral action is not advisable. 
So far, Paris has been critical of most of the programs that did not fit into 
the general pattern of our daily documentary broadcast ) . 

3. If the decision to deprive us of the small funds approved for the third 
quarter is final, those who assume responsibility for the cuts should be made 
aware of the following : 

a. Reductions in PO funds will result in the cancellation of some of our 
most popular features, which we have managed to keep on the air for many 
years. I shall cancel the Art Review (Ozenfant) as of the first of February, 
the Book Review as of the first of March, the Economic Review after March 
1st and the Stamp Talk for February and March. 

b. Reductions affecting the announcing staff will result in a deplorable 
situation, inasmuch as for "Ici New York" alone we shall have to cancel 
seventy speaking appearances during the months of February and March. 
I predict sharp reactions from the listening audience, and I wish to point 
out that the personnel of the French Unit is doing all the announcing it can 
possibly handle right now. There isn't a single member of the regular staff 
who does not go on the air several times a week. 

CONCLUSION 

Although this Unit Chief has no reason to doubt the usefulness of "special 
projects," he feels that it would be unwise to weaken still further our regular out- 
put to France. He, for one, hesitates to be held responsible for programs which, 
from the standpoint of quality, would definitely fall below the standards set by 
this organization. 



Exhibit No. 30 

Office Memorandum, United States Government 

March 26, 1951. 
To : Michael Ries — Overseas Services 
From : Fernand Auherjonois — French Unit 
Subject : New French language packages shows series 

Here are the subjects of interest to our French audience, which would give us 
good material for a new series of six packaged programs : 

1. Hollywood at tvork. — A sound picture of Hollywood outside of the studios. 
How people live there, what the streets look and sound like ; an attempt should 



330 STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 

be made to deglamorize the movie capital and interview its little people, the 
many workers connected with the industry. Where do these people go for their 
entertainment, etc.? 

2. Hollinvood play. — A more superficial, more glamorous sound picture of 
Hollywood, but try and avoid the cliches. French language interviews with 
stars. A famous night club. A ranch. 

3. San Francisco. — The French colony. Part 1 : San Francisco proper with 
emphasis on writers, artists, etc. * * * trip through "the city of Paris," America's 
only department store run like a French business. Verdier family. Part 2: 
the wine growers — how they live. Bring microphone in a cellar. Interview 
old timers. 

4. San Francisco. — Chinatown. Mainly descriptive, lots of sound. 

5. Indians in Colorado. — Record songs, gather background material for a 
half hour show on "life on an Indian reservation." Follow the process of 
Americanization of Indian children. 

6. The drive by night. — The saga of American trucking and long distance 
hauling over the highways. Cross country truck service, try and find a Fi-ench 
speaking driver for interview, record sound on the highways. Narrative 
treatment. 



SUPPLEMENTAL DATA 

No. 1 

West Englewood, N. J., March 10, 1953. 

My Dear Senator McCarthy: You will recall that I testified on March 2 to 
deny a charge of atheism. I am writing you and the other members of the sub- 
committee to set the record straight on two witnesses who testified against me, 
Mrs. Alice Shephard and Mr. Alan Strong. I had not known that these two wit- 
nesses were going to testify concerning me, so I left after the testimony of Mr. 
Edwin Kretzmann. I only discovered later from newspapers and from observers 
that these witnesses had brought forward certain other so-called evidence to 
demonstrate that I was not a religious man. 

Mrs. Shephard's statement that I had no religious beliefs when I knew her 
prior to 1946 is not true. I never made such a statement and she never questioned 
me about my religious beliefs. The fact is that I believed in God then as I do 
now. To be sure, I was engaged in a search for a meaning for my life in the 
world in spiritual terms, in common with almost all religious men in and out 
of the church. 

The final witness, Mr. Alan Strong, interpreted my refusal to read three lines 
of a script to mean that I do not believe in a divine force greater than man, better 
than man, wiser than man. The contrary is true. The passage occurred in a 
Voice of America script introducing a rebroadcast of excerpts of the American 
Legion's Back to God program. The first paragi-aph of the introduction follows: 

"What you are about to hear is one small chapter in the vast and endless story 
of mankind's spiritual growth. To tell the whole story we would have to go back 
in time and space to that nameless first man who looked heavenward and had 
knowledge of a divine force bigger (later changed to 'greater' at my suggestion) 
than man — better than man — wiser than man. And we would have to trace the 
birth and growth of the world's great religious — Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, 
Christianity, Judaism. All this has been recorded in history." 

This completes the relevant passage. I wanted the passage changed to read: 

"To tell the whole story, we would have to trace the birth and growth of the 
world's great religions — Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism. All 
this has been recorded in history." 

This omits the phrases underlined above. The script would then continue 
as written. 

I refused to read this passage because the meaning was ambiguous, and was 
based on premises which I believed to be false. These premises had nothing to 
do with the phrase about a divine force which was mentioned in the testimony 
and quoted in newspapers oiit of context. I was disturbed by the vague notion 
of a "nameless first man." It seems to me logically and theologically false to 
assume that a "first man" was aware of the "vast and endless story of man- 
kind's spiritual growth." It is my belief that only God knows this story, and 



! 
STATE DEPARTMENT INFORMATION PROGRAM 331 ! 

insofar as a spark of the Divine exists in man, it is sometimes given a few ' 

men, prophets and saints, through God's ii,a'ace to have a fragmentary insight into \ 

the story of mankind's spiritual growth. 

However, these are matters of personal belief about which there may be con- 
troversy. I did not request a policy ruling since there was nothing offensive in i 
the iKissage. However, in my capacity as Director of Religious Programing, > 
I refused to read it. As a matter of fact, another announcer did read it, and the , 
feature was broadcast in its original form. The rest of the program I heartily i 
endorsed. 

I am writing this letter in order that you and the other members of your com- 
mittee may have my views on the testimony of Mrs. Shephard and Mr. Strong. I 
am prepared to testify to the truth of these statements under oath, if you so ' 

desire. i 

Sincerely yours, . 

Roger Lyons. 

The Honorable Joseph R. McCarthy, 

United States Senate. 
State of New York, | 

County of New York. 

Sworn to before me this 12th day of March 1953. 

Commission expires March 30, 1953. 

PURDY R. FlAGG, 

Notary Public, State of New York. 
[seal] 



INDEX 



Page 

Acheson, Secretary 243, 246, 318 

Albert, Mr 241 

Armitage, Mr 246, 247 

Attlee 241 

Auberjonois, P^rnand 228, 230, 249, 305, 327, 328, 329 

Testimony of 255-298 

Auberjonois, Mrs. Fernand 261, 262, 293, 294, 296, 297 

Ayres, Mr 250 

Baldanza, Mr 246, 247 

Barmine, Mr 241, 312 

Bauer, Mr 250, 251, 282 

Berman, Harold 250 

Bernheim, Michel 280 

Blum, Leon 241 

British Broadcasting Co 233 

Busbey, Congressman 306 

CBS 269 

Cesanne, Mr 297 

Chambers 295 

Chaplin, Charlie 257, 258, 262, 281 

Cocutz, Dr. John 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 310, 311, 312, 324, 326 

Testimony of 227-255 

Cohen, Mr 326, 327 

Compton, Dr. Wilson S 233, 243 

Connors, Bradley 248, 256, 318 

D'Allesandro, Mr 289,326 

Dooher, Mr 246, 324 

Dulles, Mr ^ 237, 241, 310, 311 

Ei.senhower, General .. 311, 322, 323 

Evans, Gillesjiie S 260,291,327 

Ferber, Miss Edna 277,278 

Franklin, Harry S 280 

Gaines 291, 327 

George, Senator 246 

Goldman 250 

Hambleton. T. Edward 327 

Hamilton, Mr 296 

Harris, Reed 250, 252, 303 

Helfenstein 326 

Henry, Marcelle ^ 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278 

Houseman John 256, 257, 258, 

259, 231, 262, 264, 265, 266, 267, 269, 270, 275, 280, 281, 292, 294, 296 

Jung, Prof. Karl 300,301,324 

King, Carol 246 

Knox, Gordon 255, 256, 305, 306, 318, 318, 319, 320 

Kohler, Foy D 324 

Kretzman, Edwin 229, 230, 

231, 234, 235, 236, 238, 239, 241, 242, 244, 246, 247, 248, 251, 252, 

2'JS, 254, 255, 302, 303, 304. 

Testimony of 305-320 

Lenin • 307, 325 

Lenkeith, Dr 295 

Lewis, Fulton, Jr 311 

Lielnors, Mr 246 

Lodge, Mr 237 

838 



334 INDEX 

Paga 

Lovestone 307 

Lyons, Roger 234, 235, 236, 237, 248, 253, 254, 807, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324 

Testimony of 298-305, 308 

Martin, Joseph 238, 253 

Macy 326 

Marx, Karl 240, 245, 247, 307, 319, 320, 325 

Mathews, Troup 227, 249 

McCardle, Mr 241, 312 

Media Productions 256, 257, 

258, 259, 260, 262, 263, 266, 275, 280, 281, 285, 286, 289, 290, 291, 

292, 294, 295, 296, 297, 326, 327, 328. 

Meyers, Alva M. Jr 326 

MGM 256 

Murphy, George 257 

NBC 267,269 

Nixon, Mr 323 

Pearson 326 

Phillips, Mr 312 

Puhan, Alfred 246, 250, 280, 291, 302, 308, 324, 326, 327, 328 

Reece, Mr 287, 288 

Rhee, Syngman 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318 

Ries, Michael 260, 264, 280, 281, 326, 327, 329 

Rosen, Edward 322 

Ross, Mr. Robert 264, 280, 288 

Russell, Senator (Georgia) 246 

Schine, David 250 

Shephard, Alice Patricia, testimony of 320-321, 324 

Stalin, Joseph 239, 244, 245, 307, 319, 325 

Strong, Allen, testimony of 321-323 

Taliaferro 326 

Taylor 250 

Thomas, Norman 241 

Tillich, Prof. Paul 300 

Tito 230, 231, 232, 316 

Truman, President 229, 246, 311, 323 

Tse-tung, Mao 325 

Verdier family 283, 330 

Wilbur, Mr 309 

Wolfe, Bertram 306, 307, 318, 319 

Zorthian, Mr 250 



ROSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY 

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 

3 9999 05445 3459