Skip to main content

Full text of "State Department information program information centers. Hearing before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Government Operations, United States Senate, 83d Congress, 1st session, pursuant to S. Res. 40, a resolution authorizing the Committee on Government Operations to employ temporary additional personnel and increasing the amount of expenditures .."

See other formats




^.»... BEFORE THE ;>f'-/?<ri!*'Mjh 






,^\^'5ifiM' riRST SESSION 



S, Res. 40 





APRIL 24, 1953 


Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Operations 

33610 WASHINGTON : 1953 

Boston Public Library- 
Superintendent of Documents 

SEP 1 1953 


JOSEPH R. MCCARTHY, Wisconsin. Chairman 

KARL E. MUNDT. Soutli Dalcota JOHN L. MrCLELLAX. Aikansas 



EVERETT Mckinley DIRKSEN, Illinois HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington 



Walter L. Reynolds, Chief Clerk 

Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations 

JOSEPH R. McCarthy, Wisconsin, Chairman 

KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota JOHN L. McCLELLAN. Arkansas 


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




Appendix 282 

Index I 

Testimony of — 

Wechsler, James A., editor, New York Post, New York, N. Y 253 

EXHIBITS Introduced Appears 

on page on page 

15. Excerpt from Congressional Record, June 9, 1952 256 282 

16. Editorial from New York Post, January 23, 1950 261 283 

17. Letter from Congressman Richard Nixon to James Wechsler, 

January 30, 1950 261 285 

18. Book, Labor Baron, by James A. Wechsler 268 (*) 

19. Book, War Propaganda and the United States, by Harold 

Lavine and James A. Wechsler 270 (*) 

20. Excerpt from New York Times, June 15, 1946 272 285 

21. Excerpt from Daily Worker, December 22, 1942 272 287 

•May be found in the files of the subcommittee. 



Information Centers 

FRIDAY, APRIL 24, 1953 

United States Senate, 
Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations 

or THE Committee on Government Operations, 

Washington., D. C. 

The subcommittee met (pursuant to S. Res. 40, agreed to January 
30, 1953) at 4 : 10 p. m., in room 357 of the Senate Office Building, 
Senator Joseph R. McCarthy (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin; 
Senator John L. JNIcClellan, Democrat, Arkansas ; Senator Henry M. 
Jackson, Democrat, Washington. 

Also present : Roy Cohn, chief counsel ; Donald Surine, assistant 
counsel; David Schine, chief consultant; Daniel G. Buckley, assistant 
counsel; Howard Ruslimore, research director; Ruth Young Watt, 
chief clerk. 

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

Mr. Wechsler. I do. 

The Chairman. Will you have the record show that permission was 
received from the Senate that this committee sit this afternoon. 

Mr. Wochsler, we are sorry we kept you waiting, but there orio;inally 
was an objection to this committee sitting this afternoon by Senator 
Morse, and we had to wait for permission to sit. 

Mr. Wechsler. I understand, sir. 

The Chairman. I may say the reason for your being called today 
is that 3'ou are one of the many authors of books whose books have 
been used in the information program in various libraries, and we 
would like to check into a number of matters. Mr. Cohn will do the 

Mr. Cohn. Mr. Wechsler, can you tell us how many books you have 
written ? 


Mr. Wechsler. I have written four books. 

Mr. Cohn. Will you give us their titles^ 

Mr. Wechsler. I wrote a book called Revolt on the Campus. 

Mr. Cohn. And the approximate year? Was that 1934? 

Mr. Wechsler. That was published, I believe, in 1935. I wrote a 
book or was coauthor of a book called War, Our Heritage, in 1937. I 
was author of a book called War Propaganda and the United States, 
or coauthor, again, in 1940, and I was author of a book called Labor 



Baron, the biography of John L. Lewis, that was published, I believe, 
in 1945. 

The Chairmax. I think I missed one of the books. Revolt on the 
Campus, War, Our Heritage 

Mr. Weciisler. War Propaganda and the United States. 

The Chairman. War Propaganda and the United States. 

Senator Jackson. What was tliat last ? What year ? 

Mr. Weciisler. That was 1940, Senator. 

Mr. CoHN. Did you say you were coauthor of War, Our Heritage? 

Mr. Weciisler. That is right. 

Mr. CoHN. Who was the other coauthor i 

Mr. Wechsler. Joseph R. Lash. 

The Chairman. Revolt on the Campus, 1934? 

Mr. Wechsler. 1935. 

Tlie Chairman. War, Our Heritage? What year was that? 

Mr. Weciisler. I believe that was either 19;)() or 1937. 

The Chairman. And War Propaganda and the United States? 

'Sh: Wechsler. 1940. 

The Chairman. Were you the sole author of that ? 

Mr. Wechsler. No; I was the coauthor with Harold Lavine — 

The Chairman. And Labor Baron? What year was that? 

Mr. Wechsler. 1945, I believe. 

Mr. CoHN. The records of the information program show 1944. 
Do you think those are in error ? 

Mr. Wechsler. That may be right. I would not be sure. 

The Chairman. Were 3'ou assisted in writing Labor Baron by 
anybody ? 

Mr. Wechsler. No ; that was my own. 

The Chairman. And how about Revolt on the Campus? 

j\Ir. Wechsler. That was my own. 

The Chairman. Pardon me. 

Mr. CoiiN. You say they might be right when their card shows 

Mr. AYechsler. Yes ; that is perfectly possible. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, I will ask you this, Mr. Wechsler: Were you a 
Communist when you wrote any of these books — any of these four 
books ? 

Mr. Wechsler. Well, let me say this is all a matter of record, but 
I will repeat. I was a member of the Young Communist League at 
the time that I wrote Revolt on the Campus and at the time that 
I wrote War, Our Heritage. Li connection with both the other books, 
at the time that they were published, I was a vigorous anti-Commu- 
nist, as the content of the books would demonstrate. 
Mr. Cohn. You say the content would show that in both cases ? 
Mr. Wechsler. No question about it. 

Mr. Cohn. Now, how about the content in the case of the first two 
books ? 

Mr. Wechsler. Since I have said that at the time I wrote them I 
was in the Young Communist League, I would hardly contend they 
were anti-Communist books. 

Mr. Cohn. Well, did they follow the Connnunist line ? 
Mr. Wechsler. Obviously, yes. 


Mr. CoiiN. They did. Now, when did you join the Young Com- 
munist League? 

Mr. Wechsler. In the spring of 1934. 

Mr. Coiix. Did you join under your own name ? 

Mr. A\'echsler. Xo ; I did not. 

Mr. CoHX. Under what name did you join ? 

Mr. Wechsler. The name that I used at that time was Arthur Law- 
son. Let me add that it was a name that 1 was given when I joined, 
and that 1 never used it again. It was not a name that I employed. 
There was the procedure of using fictitious names when you got your 
card. That was the name I was given. 

Mr. CoHX. For how long a period of time were you in the Young 
Comnuuiist League ? 

Mr. AVechsler. I left the Young Communist League at the end of 
1937. I do not have tlie exact date. But by the beginning of 1938, 
when I went to work on the Nation magazine, I had definitely and 
emphatically severed my connection. 

Let me say that these facts are matters that have been inserted in 
the Congressional Record. 

Mr. Coiix. They have been inserted in the Congressional Record, 
you say ? 

Mv. Wechsler. Yes, they have. There is a statement which I have 
with me, if you would care to see it, which I submitted to Senator Leh- 
man at the time when Senator McCarthy made some remarks about 
me, and the chronology is all in there if you care to look at it. 

Senator Jacksox. What is the date of that ? 

The CiiAiRMAX. I may say if you have any material you want to in- 
sert in this record, you are at liberty to do so. 

Mr. Wechsler. Yes, sir. 

June 9. Yes, the letter was dated June 4, 1952. It appears in the 
Record as of June 9, 1952. And I would be happy to have it 

Senator Jacksox\ June 9, 1952 ? 

]Mr. Wechsler. Yes. 

jSIr. CoHX. When you left the Young Communist League, how did 
you leave it ( Did you send in a formal resignation, or what i 

Mr. Wechsler. AVell, as I am sure you know, the ])rocess of leaving 
is never a brief one. When I returned from Europe in the late sum- 
mer of 1937, I had among other things visited Russia. I had some 
rather strong feelings about the matter. And by the time I got back, 
I decided I would not return to work for the American Student Union, 
which was where I was then working. 

I free lanced that autumn, in the process of transition. In, I believe, 
Decembei', or it could have been November, I officially notified the 
Young Communist League that 1 was leaving. I did it in person, and 
I did it by mail. 

Mr. CoHX. Whom did you notify in person? 

Mr. Wechsler. Gill Green. 

Mr. (\tHx. Is he one of the leaders of the Communist Party? 

Mr. AVechsler. Yes, he is. 

Mr. CoHX. Is he a fugitive now ? 

Mr. AA"e:chsler. Yes, he is. 

Mr. CoHX. And you did it by mail ? 

Mr. AA'echsler. Yes. 

Mr. CoHX. Do you have a copy? 


Mr. Wechslee. At this moment I do not have. I looked through 
my records last night, thinking you might ask that question. I have 
not been able to find a copy. I could summarize the content of it 
for you, because I have a fairly strong recollection of that period, or at 
least that point in that period. 

The Chairmax. May I interrupt ? 

You gave the reporter a statement which you want inserted in the 
record, I believe, i ou are giving that under oath also, I understand. 

Mr. Wechsler. I am certainly giving this statement under oath. 
At the time that I submitted it, 1 volunteered to submit it under oatli 
but was not requested to do so. 

The Chairman. In view of the fact that you are putting this in the 
lecord, is it your sworn testimony that the material in that is true? 

Mr. Wechsler. It is, sir. 

The Chairman. It will be received. 

(The material referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 15" and will be 
found in the appendix on p. 282.) 

Mr. CoHN. Then, Mr. Wechsler, is it fair to say that your testi- 
mony is that you broke with the Communist movement in 1937 ? 

Mr. Wechsler. Yes, at the latter part of 1937. 

Mr. CoHN. And that was after 2 of these books had been written, 
and before the last 2 had been written ? 

Mr. Wechsler. Exactly. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, did you go to the FBI, after you broke with the 
movement, in 1937 ? 

Mr. Wechsler. No, I did not go to the FBI, but over a period of 
years — and I couldn't tell you the exact date — I assume the FBI files 
would show it, in one way or another — I was visited at times by FBI 
men. I was visited by representatives of other intelligence agencies. 

Mr. CoHN. Did you ever voluntarily go to the FBI after you broke 
with the party in 1937 ? 

Mr. Wechsler. I voluntarily went to the FBI in connection with 
another matter, in, I think, 1948. I am uncertain of the date. In 
roughly that period. 

The Chairman. May I interrupt, Mr. Cohn ? 

Mr. Wechsler, do you have any other people who are members of 
the Young Communist League, who were or are members of the Young 
Communist League, working for you on your newspaper ? 

Mr. Wechsler. Well, Senator, I will say that I am going to answer 
that question, because I believe that it is a citizen's responsibility to 
testify before a Senate committee whether he likes the committee or 

The Chairman. I know you do not like this committee. 

Mr. Wechsler. I want to say that I think you are now exploring 
a subject which the American Society of Newspaper Editors might 
want to consider at some length. 

I answer the question solely because I recognize your capacity for 
misstatement or misinterpretation of a failure to answer. I answer 
it with the protest signified. 

To my knowledge, there are no Communists on the staff of the New 
York Post at this time. 

The Chairman. The question was: Do you have anyone working 
on the New York Post who is or was a member of the Young Com- 
munist League or of the Communist Party ? 


Mr. Wechsler. Oh, I believe that tliere are. I couldn't give you 
the number. I believe that there are former members of the Young 
Communist League on the New York Post. I know 1 or 2, and I might 
add — no ; let me say I do not know of 2. I know of one. Mr. Cohn 
knows of him, too. He is a man named Kempton. And I should like 
to say that he would be very glad to discuss his position the same as 
1 am discussing mine here. He is the only one, to my knowledge, who 
was a member of the Young Communist League. 

Mr. Cohn. Is he an author of any books? 

Mr. Wechsler. Not to my knowledge. 

The Chairman. I think we should have the record clear, whether 
Mr. Wechsler objects to our asking him questions as to whether he has 
Communists working on his paper or members of the Young Commu- 
nist League. We consider that rather important. 

You see, j^our books — some of them — were paid for by taxpayers' 
money. They are being used allegedly to fight communism. Your 
record, as far as I can see it, has not been to fight communism. You 
have fought every man who has ever tried to fight communism, as 
far as I know. Your paper, in my opinion, is next to and almost paral- 
leling the Daily Worker. We are curious to know, therefore, why 
your books were purchased. We want to know how many Commu- 
nists, if any, you still have working with you. 

You say you believe that the only individual you have working for 
you at this time who either is or was a member of the Young Com- 
munist League, or who is or was a member of the Communist Party, 
is Murray Kempton. Is that right? 

Mr. Wechsler. Yes; and I said "was" very emphatically, and let 
me add equally emphatically that Mr. Kempton has for many years 
been publicly and on the record a rather vigorous anti-Communist. 

The Chahuman. How about Robert Bendiner? 

]Mr. Weghslek. Mr. Bendiner is not a member of the staff, Senator. 
He is a contributor of a weekly column. It is my understanding that 
he was an editor of the New Masses, and I would assume that in that 
capacity — that was 17 years ago — at the time he was on the New 
Masses, which was for a period of 6 months, he was a Communist. 
Let me add again that Mr. Benliner is a vigorous, emphatic anti- 

And I wonder if, in view of your remarks, I would be permitted to 
insert in the record a couple of documents, including the draft reso- 
lution of the Communist Party of December 28, 1952, in which the 
Communist Party's national committee proclaims that the failure of 
the Communist Progressive Party campaign in the last election was 
due to the policies of the Reuthers, Dubinskys, Wechslers, et al. — 

who paralyzed independent political action by projecting the myth that Steven- 
son was an obstacle to the path of reaction. 

The statement as published on page 4 of the Worker for Sunday, De- 
cember 28, 1952, reads in part : 

Support of the prowar measures of the Truman administration ; acceptance 
and propagation of the "big lie" of the external and internal "Communist men- 
ace" disarmed the workers, blocked the path to independent action by labor 
and its allies, and paved the way for a Republican victory. 

The major responsibility for this policy and its consequences rests squarely 
with the reformist and Social Democratic trade-union ofhcialdom. This was the 
content of the policies of the Reuthers, Dubinskys, Wechslers, et al., who para- 

33616— 53— pt. 4 2 


lyzed independent political action by projecting the myth that Stevenson was 
an obstacle to the advance of reaction. They pursued these policies despite the 
fact that the Democratic Party administration, operating with bipartisan sup- 
port, originated and unfolded the current war program in behalf of Wall Street. 

I am rather fond of this tribute, and it may perhaps have some bear- 
ing on your comment that I have not been active in fighting com- 

The Chairman. Did you have anything to do with the passage of 
tliat resohition ? Did you take any part in promoting the passage of 
that resolution ? 

Mr. Wechsler. Is this a serious question ? 

The Chairman. Will you read the question to the witness ? 

(Record read by reporter.) 

Mr. Wechsler. Sir, I have not been in any way affiliated with the 
Communist movement since late 1937, as I believe your investigation 
will show. That resolution was adopted by the Communist Party as 
a tribute to the militant and vigorous anticomnmnism of the New 
York Post, which has, in my judgment, been more effective in leading 
people away from communism, Senator, than those who prefer to 
identify liberalism with communism. 

The Chairman. Now, will you answer the question. 

Mr. Wechsler. Tlie answer is "No," Senator. 

The Chairman. The answer is "No." Do you know whether anyone 
on your staff took any part in promoting the passage of that resolu- 
tion ? 

Mr. Wechsler. Senator, to the best of my knowledge, no one on my 
staff is a member of the central committee of the Communist Party 
or identified with it in any way. 

The Chairman. Now, will you answer the question? Will you read 
the question to the witness? 

Mr. Wechsler. I have answered it as best I can. 

The Chairman. You have said that you did not think anyone on 
your staff was a part of the central committee. That was not the 

Read the question to the witness. 

(Record read by reporter.) 

Mr. Wechsler. I do not know that anyone on my staff took any 
part in promoting the 'passage of that resolution. 

The Chairman. I previously asked you whether anyone working 
for you is or was a member of the Communist Party or the Young 
Communist League. Apparently you understand that to mean only 
those who work full time. 

We will now ask that question in relation to those that are con- 
tributing material, either in the way of columns or otherwise, to your 

Mr. Wechsler. I believe that, with the addition of Bendiner's name, 
I have answered it. You have not raised the question I would con- 
sider relevant, as to whether there were at that time any members of 
the staff that were what you would call followers of the Communist 

I believe in that connection there is one other member of the staff 
who would fall into that category. 


Let me say for him as I said for Kempton that he would take the 
position that repirdless of his feelings about your committee he is 
prepared to testify fully and freely. 

The Chairman. We do not care whether he is prepared to testify 
or not. If the evidence is relevant, we subpena the witnesses. You 
are not here voluntaril3^ 

]\Ir. Weciislek. I beg to differ, Senator. I am here voluntarily. 
I have not been subpenaed. 

Mr. (\)7ix. The witness was requested by telephone to appear, 
which under Senate rules is an order to appear, under penalty for 
failure to comply. 

The Chairmax. How about Joe Lash ? 

Mr. Wechsler. Joe Lash is the man to whom I was referring. 

The Chairman. You say he was a follower of the Connnunist line 
in your opinion? 

Mr. Wechsler. Yes. 

The Chairman. And j'ou think he has broken away and is now an 
anti -Communist ? 

Mr. Wechsler. In 1939, Mr. Lash led the fight in the American 
Youth Congress to take away from the Communists the leadership of 
that organization, as I believe Mv. Eushmore can testify. In the 
ensuing 14 years iNIr. Lash has been, in my judgment, a consistent and 
effective anti -Communist. 

The Chairman. How about James Casey? 

Mr. Wechsler. I add him to the list. Obviously, Casey is not a 
writer on the staff, but a member of the copy desk. Mr. Casey is well 
known as a former managing editor of the Daily Worker. I believe 
he left the Communist Party in 1935. I believe the record should 
also show that he has been for many years a member of the Social 
Democratic Federation, which is otie of the most bitterly anti-Com- 
munist organizations in the United States. 

The Chairman. Well, now that I liave refreshed your recollec- 
tion, we are getting some more names. Aside from those names that 
I gave you, is there anj^one else connected either full time or part time 
with your paper, either on the copy desk, or writing a column, any- 
thing for your paper, who is or was a member of the Communist 

Mr. Wechsler. Senator, may I ask at this i)oint whether this is 
an investigation of me, or the New York Post ? 

The Chairman. It is checking the type of individuals whose books 
are being ])urchased to fight connnunism, allegedly. 

Mr. Wechsler. I understand that. 

The Chairman. And we are going into your background for that 
pur|)ose. If you are hiring Conmuinists 

Mr. AYechsler. I ask you for that reason. I didn't hire James 
Casey. That is why I asked you the question. And I believe that 
under the existing union rules under which I, as an editor, operate, 
even if JNIr. Casey Avere not an anti-Communist, I would not have 
been in a position to dispense with his services, except for an active 

Senator Jackson. Is Mr. Casey a Communist now? 

Mr. Wechsler. Mr. Casey, as I am glad to say. Senator — I be- 
lieve he ceased being managing editor of the Daily "Worker about 4 
years before Mr. Rushmore left the Daily Worker, and he has subse- 


quently been an active, aggressive anti-Communist member of the 
Social Democratic Federation, which — I can only put it this way — 
was the right wing of the Socialist Party. It included such meii at 
one time as Louis Waldman. 

Senator Jacksox. So I take it your testimony is that Mr. Casey, 
since he has been working on the Post, has not been a Communist? 

Mr. Wechsler. Certainly since he has been working for me, sir, 
which is 4 years ; and to the best of my knowledge for many years 
before that. 

Senator Jackson, 3Vliat about Mr. Lash ? What are his functions 
on the paper ? Does he participate in a polic}^ way ? 

Mr. Wechsler. No ; he is the United Nations correspondent. 

I might say that Mr. Lash, if he were here, could submit, as I 
hope to be able to do, any number of published documents in which 
his anticommunism is clear. 

Senator Jackson. He is not now a Communist? 

Mr. Wechsler. To the best of my knowledge, he was never in the 
formal sense a Communist. I think that Joe would testify, and I 
think he would urge me to testify, that for a period in the thirties he 
was a follower of the Communist line. 

The CHAiRjtAN. Have you been making attacks upon J. Edgar 
Hoover in the editorial columns of your paper? 

Mr. Wechsler. Sir, the New York Post lias, on a couple of oc- 
casions, carried editorials critical of the Federal Bureau of Investi- 
gation. We do not regard any Government agency as above criticism. 
I assume your committee doesn't either. We have at the same time 
taken very strongly the position that the charge that the FBI is 
a Gestapo or a Fascist agency was an unfounded, unwarranted charge. 

I might say to you, for whatever whimsical quality we can have 
in this hearing, that at the time I became editor of the New York 
Post — I regret I do not have it with me, but I will be glad to submit 
it for the record, because I know I have it in my files — I received a 
letter of congratulations from Mr. Lou Nichols, who I believe is now 
the deputy to Mr. J. Edgar Hoover. I shall be happy to submit that 
letter for the files. 

Let me add, in Mr. Nichols' behalf, that at the time we criticized 
the FBI, he took issue with me. We have had some lively corre- 
spondence. But I would still choose to regard him as a friend. 

The Chairman. Have you ever, in your editorial columns, over the 
last 2 years, praised the FBI ? 

Mr. Wechsler. Well, sir, I would have to go back and read our 
editorials for the last 2 years. I did not understand that I was 
being called down here for a discussion of Post editorial policy. I 
have tried to say to you what we have said editorially about the FBI. 

The Chairman. Is your answer that you do not recall at this time 
any ])raise of the FBI, but you do recall editorializino; against the 
FBI? " ^ 

Mr. Wechsler. The statement that I made was not a criticism of 
the FBI. The statement I made was an attitude toward the FBI, 
which was that it was an agency that did not deserve to be above 
criticism, but that neither was it an agency which deserved to be de- 
nounced as it has been denounced in some quarters as a Fascist-Gestapo 
agency, and so on. 

That is my attitude toward the FBI. 


The Chairman. Have 3^011 always been very critical of the heads of 
the Un-American Activities Committee? You have always thought 
they were pretty bad men, have you not? 

Mr. AVeciislkr. Well, you would have to tell me whom we were talk- 
ing about. For example, I have here, and I think that perhaps it 
would be a good thing to submit it for the record 

The Chairman. You may submit anything you care to for the 

Mr. Weciisler. A letter from then Congressman Nixon, who was 
very active, as I understand it, in the House Un-American Activities 
Committee exposure of Alger Hiss, in which he warmly praised an 
editorial that I wrote on the Hiss case. I have it here. I would like 
to submit that. 

The Chairman. You may put that in. 

(Editorial of the New York Post for January 23, 1950, was marked 
"Exhibit No. 16'' and will be found in the appendix on p. 283. Letter 
from the then Congressman Nixon, dated January 30, 1950, was 
marked "Exhibit No. 17" and will be found in the appendix on p. 285.) 

The Chairman. I would like to have you get back to my question, 
then, if you could, however. 

Mr. "Weciisler. Well, he was a member, as you will recall, at that 
time, of the House Un-American Activities Committee, and I am say- 
ing only that in connection with the Hiss case, I certainly did not take 
a critical position about the committee. I think I was one of the first 
writers in a magazine article to suggest great doubt about Alger Hiss' 
protestations of innocence. And if I may read here the note from 
Congressman Nixon, under date of January 30, 1950, it reads as 

The Chairjvian. I am going to let you read anything you want to 
into the record, but first I want you to answer the question, if you will. 

Have you consistently criticized the chairmen of the House Un- 
American Activities Committee, whose task it is to expose Commu- 
nists, or have you ever found one of them that you thought was a pretty 
good fellow, that you praised, or that you could praise as of today — 
a chairman? 

Mr. Weciisler. Well, if you are asking me my position on the activi- 
ties of the Velde committee, my answer is that I have been editorially 
critical of those activities, as have many other newspapers. 

The Chairman. Do you understand the question ? 

Mr. Wechsler. Yes. I thought — — 

The Chairman. I asked you whether you consistently criticized at 
all times the various heads of the Un-American Activities Committee. 
Have you ever in the past or can you now think of a single chairman 
of one of those committees who, in your opinion, was a good man and 
did a good job? 

Mr. Wechsler. I don't remember whether Congressman Nixon was 
chairman at the time of the Hiss case. I guess he was not. He was 
a minority member. 

The Chairman. He was not the chairman. 

Mr. Wechsler. So I think the answer. Senator, would be that I do 
not recall praising a chairman of the House Un-American Activities 

Mr. Cohn. Had you praised Congressman Nixon in the editorial ? 

Mr. Wechsler. Well, I believe that in my 


The CiiAiRMAX. Have you got the editorial ? 

Mr. IVechsler. Yes ; I have it here, I would be glad to submit it. 

No; I did not. But I believe that his letter was an outgi'owth of 
my earlier article in the Progressive. In any case 

Mr. CoHX. I want to ask you this one thing before I forget. 

Mr. Wechsler. Anyway, if it is a momentous issue. Senator, I am 
unable to present any documents suggesting that I praised a chair- 
man of the House Un-American Activities Committee. 

The Chairman. The principal villains in your book are those in the 
Congress who have gone about the job of exposing Communists. Is 
that correct^ Or is that an unfair statement ? 

Mr. Wechplek. Xo, Senator; that is not correct. If I may, since 
you have asked the c|uestion, we have repeatedly taken the position 
that the New York Post is as bitterly opposed to Joe Stalin as it is to 
Joe McCarthy, and we believe that a free society can combat both. 

The Chairman. And you are opposed to Bill Jenner, too. You 
think he is a dangerous man? 

Mr. Wechsler. Senator, I give you a priority in this field, and I 
have not written about Senator Jenner in recent months, because, for 
example, with respect to the activities of the Senator's committee, I 
have not criticized the work of its committee counsel, Mr. Robert 

The Chairman. Do you think Jenner is doing a good job? 

Mr. Wechsler. Senator, I assume you do not want me to make 
speeches here, and I am trying not to. However, when you ask me a 
question like tliat, it is difhcult not to respond with a speech. 

The Chairman. You can answer that in as great length as you care 
to. We have a lot of time. 

Mr. Wechsler. My basic position is that American society is a very 
strong and resilient one. I believe that we have successfully resisted 
Communist aggression in the world under the leadership of men whom 
you have at times deemed sinister. I believe that in the battle of ideas 
We can compete effectively any day of the week with the Communists 
without resorting to methods which I regard as imitative of theirs. I 
see by your expression that you feel as if you have heard this before, 
so I will not pursue the point. 

The Chairman. I have. I have read it in the Daily Worker and in 
the New York Post. 

]Mr. Wechsler. You have probably read it in the New York Times. 
I can't help but wonder when the editor of the Times is going to be 
down here. 

The Chairman. I do not think he has written any books for the 
information program, and if our evidence shows he did and was a 
member of the Communist Party or the Young Comnmnist League 
and if since then he has been consistently fighting anyone who fights 
communism, we would bring him down. 

Mr. Wechsler. Senator, I have not been consistently fighting any- 
one wlio fights communism. That is not a true statement. I have 
been fighting communism for many years. And I say to you that 
when you suggest that I drafted the Communist resolution denouncing 
me, you are attempting to prove a point which you know can't be 
proved. And while we are on the point, let me add this is not a new 
discovery of mine. 


The Chairman. Will you get back to that question after a while? 

The question is : Do you think Bill Jenner is doing a good job i 

Mr. Wechsler. I am not an enthusiast of Senator Jenner's. 

The Chairman. How about Yelde? You are opposed to him, are 
you not? 

Mr. Wechsler. I believe that in recent weeks Congressman Velde 
has been making an effort to improve the procedures of congressional 
investigations, and 1 eagerly await the outcome. 

The Chairman. You have been critical of Yelde in your column? 

Mr. Wechsler. I couldn't say at this moment we have devoted any 
column to him, but I would have to check that. 

The Chairman. Did you know Harry Dexter AYhite? 

Mr, Wechsler. I saw Harry Dexter White once in my life. That 
was when I returned from Germany, after I had been separated from 
the Treasury Department, and it was at his office that I received the 
papers of separation. 

The Chairman. You had not seen him before then? 

Mr. Wechsler. I have never, to my knowledge, even seen him 
before that. 

The Chairman. You were in the Army for a while? 

Mr. Wechsler. I was what? 

The Chairman. You were in the Army for a while? 

Mr. Wechsler. Yes. 

The Chairman. AVheii did you enter? 

Mr. Wechsler. In April 1945. 

The Chairman. And then when did you leave? 

Mr. Wechsler. I will have to give you a narrative again. 

The Chairman. Roughly. 

Mr. Wechsler, As an enlisted man, I was sent to Germany in the 
summer of 1945, to work in military govermnent. At that time, along 
with many others, as was the process in the Army then, I was, as it 
was called, civilianized and attached to military government. I 
believe my separation occurred in October. 

The Chairman, Were you separated upon the requCvSt of Harry 
Dexter White ? 

Mr. Wechsler. Xot to my knowledge. I was separated, to my 
knowledge, at the request of Colonel Bernstein. 

The Chairman. Have you ever heard that Harry Dexter White 
signed the order or the request that you be, as you sa3% ''civilianized"? 

Mr. Wechsler. I have never heard that, but I repeat again : I was 
in a division of military government which was under the jurisdiction 
of the Treasury. My superior was Colonel Bernstein. I was an 
enlisted man, a GI. I would not have been told who signed what 
papers. I was assigned to Colonel Bernstein actually as jn-ess agent. 

The Chairman. Is there any doubt in your mind that Harry 
Dexter White at that time was a Communist agent? 

Mr. Wechsler. Senator, I haven't any personal knowledge of 
Harry Dexter White. If you are asking me my opinions based on 
hearsay and reading, that is quite a different matter; but I must 
confess that I hesitate to pronounce a certain answer about a dead 

Senator Jackson. Did you ever talk to him, have any dealings 
with him ? 


Mr. Wechsler. Literally once, which was a conversation lasting 
2 minutes, in which I went into his office and got my final severance 
from the Treasury. . . tit r^ t. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you this : First, is it correct, Mr. Oohn, 
that Harry Dexter White signed the order referred to ? 

Mr. CoHN. That is my information, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. After that order had been signed, is it correct that 
you were working under a Mr. Russ Nixon, a man known to you then 
as a member of the Communist Party ? This was in 1945. 

Mr. AVechsler. Senator, let me make clear for your benefit— I 
assume you are reading from a deposition in another matter. I was a 
GI in the army assigned to Germany. I was assigned to Colonel 
Bernstein. Colonel Bernstein resigned. General Clay appointed Euss 
Nixon as his successor. I simply was held over for a brief period m 
the job which I had held before, which was that of press agent for the 
man in charge of the division. 

With respect to the condition of military government in Germany 
at that time, I could only say that I think General Clay would be a 
far more informed witness than I. But I was not in a position of 
choice as to working for Russ Nixon. 

I might add that I don't know that he was in a position of choice 
about keeping me there. We were not friends. 

The Chairman. Were you working under Russ Nixon? 

Mr. Wechsler. Yes, sir. Under the circumstances I have just 

The Chairman. Did you know he was a Communist at that time? 

Mr. Wechsler. I had every reason to believe — I regarded him as a 
Communist, without knowing whether he held a party card or not. 

The Chairman. Do you know whether Harry Dexter Wliite placed 
him in that job? 

Mr. Wechsler. I don't know, sir. All that I knew about Nixon 
was that, when Bernstein left. General Clay appointed Nixon as Bern- 
stein's successor. 

The Chairman. Did you ever report to the FBI that you con- 
sidered Nixon a member of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Wechsler. Senator, the Nixon battle was a battle of the ETO. 
There was no secret about it. It was fought from Berlin to Frank- 
furt. And it was won, I am glad to say, within a couple of months 
after I was assigned to work for him. It was a battle well known. 
I discussed it many times with newspapermen there. Russ Nixon 
was not a secret figure. Russ Nixon was one of the active members 
of the left wing of the CIO. I would have hardly felt it necessary 
to tell the FBI that Russ Nixon had Communist sympathies. That 
was fairly apparent. 

The Chairman. Your testimony, then, is that you felt it was so 
generally known that he was a Communist that it was unnecessary for 
you to add your voice to that. 

Mr. Wechsler. Oh, I think I may have helped speed his day of 
departure by discussing it with newspapermen who were interested 
in the story. 

The Chairman. Did you consider John P. Lewis a member of the 
Communist Party ? 

Mr. Wechsler. John P. Lewis ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 


Mr. Wechsler. Definitely not, sir. 

Senator Jackson. Who is John P. Lewis ? 

Mr. Wechsler. He was the managing editor of PM at the time I 
worked there. 

The Chairman. Now, I asked you a question before, and we got 
away from it. The question was: Aside from the four people you 
named, do you now know of anyone else who was working for you or 
your paper in any capacity ; either as a copy boy, an editorial writer, a 
weekly or monthly contributor, who either was or is a member of the 
Young Communist League or the Conununist Party ? 

Mr. Wechsler. Offhand, I do not recall any. I would have to go 
through a staff list to give you a definitive answer. 

I might say on this point. Senator : You see, my problem was some- 
what solved for me, because when I became editor of the Post I suc- 
ceeded Ted Thackrey. Ted Thackrey set up a newspaper called the 
Compass, which in my judgment was a newspaper that followed the 
Communist line. I would say that, at the time he did that, the few 
Communist activists on the New York Post went over to him, and 
I have not had a Communist problem on the New York Post, Senator. 

The Chairman. In other words, you feel, when you took over, the 
Communists voluntarily left and went over to Thackrey on the 

Mr. Wechsler. Yes, sir; to the degree that there was any Com- 
munist infiltration of the Post. 

Let me add: I haven't the faintest notion what the political affil- 
iations are of the men who set the type on the Post. If I discovered 
that anti-Communist editorials were coming out wrong every day, 
there would be an investigation. We haven't had that problem. 

The Chairman. Did you ever give the FBI a list of the people who 
were with you in the Young Communist League? 

Mr. Wechsler. I gave the FBI a statement, I believe, in the year 
1948. I will have to bore you again, I am afraid. In that year, my 
wife was then employed by the President's Committee on Civil Eights. 
She was an attorney. 

The Chairman. Incidentally, let me interrupt. Was your wife a 
member of the Young Communist League also? 

Mr. Wechsler. At the time that I was, and I believe that we were 
fortunate enough to grow up politically simultaneously, so I think 
that she may have even left a couple of months before I did. 

The Chairman. Your position is that both you and your wife are 
now anti-Communist? 

Mr. Wechsler. Emphatically and strongly. 

The Chairman. And if you knew of any Communists in Govern- 
ment, you would identify them to the correct Government agency? 

Mr. Wechsler. Senator, I said that I have be«n interviewed by 
FBI agents on numerous occasions and asked about men in Govern- 
ment, and I have given truthful responses to the best of my ability 
on every occasion. I have always made clear on these occasions that 
I left this organization late in 1937, and that any direct knowledge 
I would have would end with that date. 

The Chairman. Did you ever give the FBI a list of your fellow 
members of the Young Communist League ? 

33616—53 — ^pt. 4,- 1 3 


Mr. Wechsler. I believe, sir, and this would be available, and it 
is not a secret document, that when I went to see Mr. Nichols in 1948, 
which was what I started to tell you, at a time when my wife was under 
attack, and we discovered that there were a couple of errors in the FBI 
dossier, they were not up to date, and Mr. Nichols was extremely 
cooperative about bringing them up to date. I made a statement to 
him at that time, and I told him then of my history in the Young 
Communist League, and I told him of the youth group with which I 
was affiliated, a group which was drawn from all the youth organiza- 
tions, the leaders of the youth organizations. 

The Chairman. Did you give him a list of the names ? 

Mr. Wechsler. To the best of my knowledge, I did, sir. To the 
best of my recollection. I remember clearly discussing names with 

I might add, on that point 

The Chairman, Roughly, how many names did you give him ? 

Mr. Wechsler. Oh, I would say half a dozen. You see, let me make 
one point clear. At the time I was in the Young Communist League, 
I did not have any contact with any large group of underOTOund 
Communists. Most of the Communists of that day were known 
Communists. There was no political underground with which I was 
associated. I can only say, on this general point, and say it quite 
emphatically, that any knowledge that I have that would be useful 
to this Government in protecting its national security has always been 
available and has been given to the Government on any occasion 
when the situation arose. 

The Chairman. You say you think you gave the FBI a list of about 
six of your fellow members of the Young Communist League ? 

Mr. Wechsler. I want to make one point clear, Senator : That in 
the discussion in the statement that I gave Mr. Nichols, as I recall it, 
I described what was the group in which all the leaders of various 
youth organizations assembled. I do not know that every one of 
those leaders held a card in the YCL or the Communist Party. I do 
not believe that anyone who was in that group could truthfullj^ deny 
that we were operating under Communist discipline and that it was 
a Communist group. It was not the usual Communist unit. That is 
the only distinction I am drawing. 

The Chairman. And the question is: How many names did you 
give the FBI? 

Mr. Wechsler. As I said, I think it is about half a dozen, but I 
would have to refresh my recollection with the statement that I gave 
the FBI. 

The Chairman. You are sure you gave them a list of names ? 

Mr. Wechsler, I am sure that I mentioned names. I haven't any 
question about that. 

The Chairjman. And was that in a written statement ? 

Mr, Wechsler, It was in a statement that was dictated in Mr. 
Nichols' oflice. 

The Chairman, And you are sure that in that dictated statement 
you mentioned the names of some of those who were with you in this 
Young Communist League ? 

Mr, Wechsler. That is my best recollection. Senator, 

The Chairman. But you are not sure of that? 


Mr. Wechsler. I can remember discussing names with Mr. Nichols. 
We would have to check the statement to see whether the names were in 
the statement or whether I gave them verbally and he took them down. 

The Chairman. That is the only time that you ever gave the FBI 
the names of fellow young Communist Leaguers ? 

Mr. Wechsler. Let me make one point clear about this, Senator. 
The Young Communist Leaguers whom I knew were known, were 
mostly known, Communists. This was not an underground operation 
in that sense. Where I have been asked about people that I knew at 
any time, I answered fully and freely to the best of my ability. If I 
knew today that someone who was in the Young Communist League 
with me was in a strategic Government post, I would certaintly com- 
municate that information. There has never been any question in my 
mind as to a citizen's responsibility on that point. I have never been 
uncooperative in the discussion of such cases 

The Chairjman. Do you know now the names of any of those who 
were with you in the Young Communist League, or have you forgotten 
them ? Do you know the names now of any of those fellow Young 
Communist Leaguers ? 

Mr. Wechsler. Sure. Do you want a long list? A short list? 
How do you want this ? 

The Chairman. I think all of those that you can think of. 

Mr. Wechsler. Joe Cadden was a Communist at that time. Bill 
Hinckley was, to the best of my knowledge, a Communist. And 
here I would draw only what to me is a legal but not a moral distinc- 
tion as to whether he held a card. Celeste Strack was, of course, an 
active Communist in that period. Bert Witt, who subsequently became 
an active Wallace Leaguer on the west coast. I once tried to explain 
this to Mr. Wallace. I thought it might do some good there. Ken- 
neth Born, who was another Wallacite in 1948. 

I would say those were the major characters. 

The Chairman. Do you know any of those Young Communists who 
are in any Govermnent position as of today ? 

Mr. Wechsler. No, sir ; I do not. 

The Chairman. Do you know Bernard DeVoto ? 

Mr. Wechsler. I trust this is not a sequitur. 

The Chairman. Pardon? 

Mr. Wechsler. I trust this is not a sequitur. 

The Chairman. It is a question. 

Mr. Wechsler. I believe I may have met Bernard DeVoto. I can't 
recall the occasion on which I did. If I did, it would have been up 
at Harvard on some occasion when I met him. I regret to say he is 
not a close personal friend of mine. 

The Chairman. You regi^et to say that ? 

Mr. Wechsler. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You did not collaborate with him in writing the 
article in which he advocated that Americans not talk to the FBI? 

Mr. Wechsler. No, sir ; I thought that was a very bad article. 

The Chairman. You do not agree with that? 

Mr. Wechsler. I don't agree with that. 

The Chairman. Just one other question. We are going to ask you, 
Mr. Wechsler, to prepare a list and submit to the committee and con- 
sider it to be submitted under oath, of all of the Young Communist 


Leaguers that you knew as such, or the Communists. That is an 

Senator Jackson, do you have any questions ? 

Mr. Wechsler. I would just like to say, on that point. Senator, 
that I am here as a responsive but not a friendly witness. 

I would like to add the obvious point at this moment that I have 
severed my association with the Communists as of nearly 16 years 

I trust that you will recognize that the list I give you would be as 
complete as a man's memory might be. I don't know that you would 
be able to do very well with a similar list of any organization that 
you were connected with 16 years ago. 

The Chairman. Well, we are asking for the list. You say you have 
severed your connection. I am not going to, at this time, try to 

Mr. Wechsler. Senator, you are raising that point. 

The Chairman (continuing). Pass on whether that is tnie or not. 
I know that you have never testified in a case against a Conununist. 
I know that none of the men that you have named here as anti- 
Communists have ever testified in a case against Communists. I know 
that they and you have been consistently and viciously attacking any- 
one who does testify against Communists, anyone that exposes Com- 

Mr. Wechsler. Senator, that is not true. 

The Chairman. Let me finish. You may have all the time in the 
world to talk. 

So you cannot blame the average person who questions whether 
you ever did break with the party. 

Mr. Wechsler. Oh, I can, sir. 

The Chairjman. You cannot question our right to check and see 
why your books are being put on the shelves allegedly to fight com- 
munism. Certainly no one who is anti-Communist would put the New 
York Post on a shelf to fight communism any more than they would 
use the Daily Worker. Now you can speak at length, if you care to. 

Mr. Wechsler. Senator, first of all, I would like to enter into the 
record, a chapter from a book called Labor Baron, which is called 
Lewis and the Communists. This book was written — we have the 
date here — it was April 1944, that I finished the book. I think 'that 
there are 30 pages here as of 8 years ago, which give a fairly definitive 
description of my attitude toward the Communists. 

The Chairman. Would you not suggest that if we were receiving 
one chapter we should receive the entire book ? 

Mr. Wechsler. Oh, certainly. I was trying to save the committee 
some money. 

The Chairman. We will receive the entire book as an exhibit. 

(The book Labor Baron was marked "Exhibit No. 18'' and may be 
found in the files of the subcommittee.) 

Senator Jackson. Mr. Wechsler, how old were you when you joined 
the Young Communist League ? 

]\Ir. Wechsler. I was 18 years old. 

Senator Jackson. How old were you when you left? 

Mr. Wechsler. I joined in April 1934. I was going to be 19 in 
October. ^ I left in 1937, when I would have been 22 years old. These 
dates don't quite match, because they are different seasons of the year 
that we are talking about. But I had just turned 22 when I left. 


Senator Jackson. Yon were between 18 and 10 when yon joined, 
and yon were just turned 22 when you left the Conununist Party. 

Mr. Wechsler. Tliat is correct, sir. 

Senator Jackson. What did you do after that ? Were you in college 
in 1937? 

Mr. Wechsler. No, sir. I graduated from college in June of 1935. 

Senator Jackson. How old were you when you graduated ? 

Mr. Wechsler. I was then going on 20. 

Senator Jackson. What school did you graduate from? 

Mr. Wechsler. Columbia University. 

Senator Jackson. You were with the Young Communist League, 
I take it, after yovi got out of college in 1935, or were active in it? 

Mr. Wechsler. Yes, sir, after I got out of college I wrote Revolt 
on the Campus. Then, in December of 1935, the American Student 
Union was formed, and I went to work for it as director of publica- 
tions, which meant that I edited the magazine which they put out. 
And I continued to work there until the summer of 1937. 

Senator Jackson. Then what did you do ? 

Mr. Wechsler. In the fall of 1937, when my wife and I came back 
from this European trip, which included a trip to Russia, I was a 
free-lance writer for about 3 months. I wrote articles for the Nation, 
for the Times magazine, and a couple of others. 

Senator Jackson. The New York Times? 

Mr. Wechsler. Yes. And in January, I believe, of 1938, January 
or February, I went to work as a full-time editor on the Nation. 

I might add that at the time I went to work for the Nation it was 
a vigorously anti-Communist magazine which was at that time 

The Chairman. I did not get the name of this vigorously anti- 
Communist magazine you mentioned. 

]\Ir. Wechsler. Pardon me, sir ? 

The Chairman. You referred to a magazine as being vigorously 
anti-Communist. What was the name of that magazine ? 

]Mr. Wechsler. The name of it was the Nation. 

The Chairman. Pardon me. 

Senator Jackson. What was your position with reference to the 
Russian-Nazi Pact of 1939 ? 

Mr. W^ECHSLER. Let me say that prior to that pact I was anti-Com- 
munist, but my position on the pact was one of bitter denunciation, 
and I regret that I could not find this last night, but I would like to 
insert in the record — I wrote an article, a signed article, in the Nation 
at that time called Stalin and Union Square, which was a discussion 
of the terrible impact of this agreement on the world. 

Senator Jackson. Will you supply a copy of that to the committee? 

Mr. Wechsler. I certainly will, sir. 

The Chairman. Did I understand you to say you thought the Na- 
tion was anti-Communist ? 

Mr. Wechsler. I said at that time, sir. 

The Chairman. At that time, but not as of today ? 

Mr. Wechsler. I would not make the same comment at this time. 

Senator Jackson, That was 1938 you were referring to, as to the 
Nation ? 


Mr. Wechsler. Yes, sir ; I worked on the Nation from 1938, from 
January 1938, until I believe May of 1940, when the newspaper, PM, 
was formed. 

Senator Jackson. Well, now, would you supply for the committee 
any articles that you might have written at or about the time of the 
Nazi pact? 

Mr. Wechsler. I will certainly do that, sir. 

Senator Jackson. And up until the invasion of Russia by the Nazis 
in June of 1951, I mean, about your position during that period. 

Mr. Wechsler. Yes. Because you see, in May of 1940, I went to 
work on PM as an assistant labor editor. So that I don't know how 
many byline pieces I would have. I might add on that point, how- 
ever, that I was at that time extremely active in the anti-Communist 
wing of the American Newspaper Guild, and in New York City, we 
licked the Communists, as Mr. Rushmore may mention. He might 
even testify to this point some day. We not only licked them, but 
took it over from them. I regard that as a part of my anti-Communist 
record, going quite a distance back, if I may say so. 

Senator Jackson. Well, to continue on, can you supply for the 
committee, in addition to these articles that you have referred to and 
testified to, and your book, such information as you might have avail- 
able from the time you left the Communist Party up to the present 
time, outlining your position for the purpose of the record, in view of 
the testimony here? 

Mr. Wechsler. Senator, I hate to be putting all my books in the 
record. It costs a lot of money. 

Senator Jackson. No, they are exhibits. 

Mr. Wechsler. But the book, War Propaganda and the United 
States, which was published in 1940, during the Nazi-Soviet Pact, in- 
cludes a lengthy chapter dealing critically with and exposing Com- 
munist propaganda at that time. 

Senator Jackson. I think that ought to be included as an exhibit, 
the whole book. 

Mr. Wechsler. I hate to act like a book salesman. 

Senator Jackson. Well, you are giving them away. 

(The book. War Propaganda and the United States, was marked 
"Exhibit No. 19" and may be found in the files of the subcommittee.) 

Mr. Wechsler. Let me add on this point again 

Senator Jackson. Let me just ask you this one question. Since 
you left the Communist Party, after you came back from Europe 
in 1937 

Mr. Wechsler. The Young Communist League. 

Senator Jackson. Well, the Young Communist League. 

Mr. Wechsler. Youth was the only saving grace. 

Senator Jackson. As I take it, your position publicly and in writ- 
ten articles has been on an anti-Communist basis, and on basic Com- 
munist issues you have been anti-Communist, including such matters 
as the Nazi pact and action taken by the Soviet after World War II ? 

Mr. Wechsler. Yes, sir. There is no question about it. 

Senator Jackson. What was your position on Greek-Turkish aid? 
Did you have anything on that? 

Mr. Wechsler. Well, sir, I have got to go back a bit on this, be- 
cause the more you talk the more I realize the number of exhibits I 
should have brought. 


I became editor of the Post in May 1949. At that time one of the 
great issues which the Communists were fighting in America was the 
Marshall plan. I was a vigorous supporter editorially of the Mar- 
shall plan. I was a vigorous supporter of the Truman doctrine. This 
is editorially; these are matters that are on the record. I would be 
happy to submit to this committee every editorial written since I 
became editor. 

The Chairman. I do not think that I would care to read them. 

Mr. Wechsler. Well, sir, you have made rather strong judgments 
about me. I would think perhaps in fairness you ought to read them 

The Chairman. I read enough of your stuff, Mr. Wechsler, to find 
that your paper, as far as I know, always leads the vanguard, with 
the Daily Worker, follows the same line, against anyone who is willing 
to expose Communists in Government. That may be your way ox 
fighting communism. Now, you have a perfect right to. People nave 
a right to buy the sheet. 

I do not care to read any more of it myself. 

I want to thank you for the invitation, however. 

Mr. Wechsler. Senator, perhaps in line with your questioning, 
Senator Jackson, I should also enter at this point an article from the 
New York Times, June 15, 1946, headlined "Five Quit PM Saying 
Reds Sway Editor." That was a reference to the then editor of PM, 
Ralph Ingersoll. I was the head of the Washington Bureau of PM 
at that time. I resigned along with four of my colleagues, the late 
Nate Robertson, and others, and in the course of the statement we said 
as follows : 

Although not himself a Communist, he has continuously yielded to Communist 
pressure and has denounced as factionists those staff members who have tried 
to keep the party line out of the paper. 

He has destroyed the confidence of those who believe that PIM should be as 
realistic and critical in its coverage and examination of Russian foreign policy 
as in its evaluation of the foreign policy of our own Government. 

I would like to submit this for the record. This is a climax of a 
bitter internal battle in PM in which I, if I may say so with humility, 
was a leader of the anti-Communist bloc on the newspaper. I would 
like to submit that. 

I would also like to enter in the record an article from the Daily 
Worker dated December 22, 1942, which is an attack largely devoted 
to me. It refers to me in the following terms : 

Then there is the case of James W. Wechsler, an ex-Communist who, in his 
work in PM's Washington Bureau, displays the typical jitters of an "ex" since 
he is never quite sure that the Dies committee or the influential people he wants 
to impress will accept his conversion at its face value. 

You see, I had trouble convincing them. 

The Chairman. I assume you will have trouble convincing any- 
one if you follow the same line you do in your paper, but that is your 

Mr, Wechsler (reading) : 

Wechsler suffers especially since the Dies committee launched the cry that 
some "Communists" announce their desertion of "communism" only the better 
to propagate their "communism." (In this view, even the abolition of polltax 
is described as "communism.") 

Such chronic suspicion of "ex-Communist" is, of course, an occupational hazard 
of that tribe which would have only a private clinical interest, were it not for 


the fact that Wechsler, apparently, is a determining voice in PM's political 


Then it goes on to denounce me at great length and ends by saying 


It is due to Wechsler's influence that PM, alone of all the New York news- 
papers, suppressed from its news report Premier Sikorski's warning: "The 
Germans will try to frighten the democracies by the threat of Bolshevism. * * *" 

I would like to enter this in the record. 

(A newspaper clipping from the New York Times, dated June 14, 
1946, was marked "Exhibit No. 20" and will be found in the appendix 
on p. 285 ; an excerpt from the Daily Worker of Tuesday, December 
22, 1942, was marked "Exhibit No. 21" and will be found in the 
appendix on p. 287.) 

The Chairman. Mr. Wechsler, let me ask you this: If you or I 
were a member of the Communist Party and we wanted to advance 
the Communist line, perhaps the most effective way of doing that 
would Ibe to claim we deserted the party ; and if we got in control of 
the paper, use that paper to attack and smear anybody who actually 
was fighting communism. Now, without saying whether you have 
done it, you would agi-ee that would be a good tactic, would you not ? 

Mr. Wechsler. Senator, perhaps I have some more knowledge on 
this than you do. I don't know of cases in which the Communist 
Party undertook that activity. I would doubt very much that be- 
cause you have an ex-Communist on your staff that he was an agent 
of the Communists working within your committee. 

The Chairman. I may say, Mr. Wechsler, there is a big difference 
between the ex-Communist on our committee and your excommunism, 
either real or alleged. Mr. Rushmore has testified before a very sizable 
number of comniittees. He has cooperated with the FBI. He has 
given all the information, complete information, on the Communists 
that he has worked with on the Daily Worker. There is no doubt 
about his anticommunism and his being a real ex-Communist. He 
does not spend his time, you see, trying to smear and tear down the 
people who are really fighting communism. 

Mr. Wechsler. Senator, let's face it. You are saying that an ex- 
Communist who is for McCarthy is a good one and an ex-Communist 
who is against McCarthy is suspect. I will stand on that distinction. 

The Chairman. No; that is incorrect. I will say you can judge 
whether a man is really an ex-Communist quite well by a number of 
things. No. 1, if you find that he cooperates with the Government 
agencies which are digging out the Communists, with the committees, 
gives all the information, not a matter of perhaps giving six names, 
not knowing whether he gave the names or not — a real ex-Communist 
does not take it upon himself to fight and smear every real ex-Com- 
munist who decides to expose his former fellow Communists. There 
is a big difference, you see, a huge difference. 

Mr. Wechsler. Senator, I want to comment on this point. I feel 
rather strongly about it. 

The Chairman. You can, at length. 

Mr. Wechsler. I think ex-Communists, like ex-Democrats, are dif- 
ferent kinds of human beings — they are varied ; I have different feel- 
ings about some than about others — but I feel very strongly about 
the suggestion that I have invariably smeared ex-Communists who 
were doing what you consider to be patriotic work. At the time when 


Whittaker Chambers was the key witness in the trial of Alger Hiss, 
it was quite fashionable in some places. Republican and Democratic 
circles alike, let me add, to say that obviously Alger Hiss must be 
innocent because he is such a fine fellow, and Whittaker Chambers is 
an ex-Communist. And I repeat again, and I shall submit this along 
with other articles, that I think I was one of the first people to write 
a detailed study of the Hiss case which suggested rather strongly that 
Mr. Chambers might be telling the truth. I have never attacked 
Whittaker Chambers. I happen to have a great respect for him as a 
writer. I disagree with him politically. I regret that he chose to be a 
Re])ublican, but this is a free country. I am sure that he would forgive 
my having supported Adlai Stevenson. But I do not want the record 
to show in any way that I participated in what was in my judgment 
a smear campaign against Whittaker Chambers. 

The Chairman. How about Budenz? 

JNIr. Wechsler. I have different feelings about Mr. Budenz, but I 
would have to elaborate them at length. I don't believe an ex-Commu- 
nist becomes a great writer merely because he is an ex-Communist. 
Neither do I think he ought to be regarded as a thief all his life be- 
cause he was once a Communist. 

The Chairman. Did you say you came to the defense of Chambers? 

Mr. Wechsler. I fought the battle of Chambers from one end of 
Georgetown to the other when I was a correspondent here. 

The Chairman. You will submit that for the record? 

Mr. Wechsler. I will submit articles on the Hiss case. 

The Chairman. I am not asking you to, but you said you wanted to 
submit them. 

jMr. Wechsler. I will, yes. 

The Chairman. Did you ever come to the defense of any other real 
anti-Communist who was exposing them, testifying before committees ? 

Mr. Wechsler. Well, as editor of the Post, I do not know whether 
Eleanor Lipper was an ex-Communist or not. I believe she was. She 
wrote a series of articles about the Russian slave labor camps. That 
was one of the first series run in the Post under my editorship. 

I don't argue — I would be rather silly to argue — that ex-Commu- 
nists were by nature evil men, but I do insist that an ex-Communist 
should stand on his own feet as an American and say what he believes 
and fight for what he believes. 

The Chairman. One other question. 

Do you know any other people, either in Government or working 
in any organizations that are disseminating news, who are, as of today, 
members of the Communist Party and who have not been publicly 
exposed as such ? 

^rr. Wechsler. No ; I do not. 

The Chairman. Do you know any people as of today who are either 
members of the Young Communist League or members of the Com- 
munist Party who have not been publicly exposed as such? 

Mr. Wechsler. ^Vho are now, or were ? 

The Chairman. Who are now. 

Mr. Wechsler. I obviously do not, because my knowledge of the 
Young Communist League ends with late 1937. 

The Chairman. The Communist Party? 

Mr. Wechsler. The Communist Party, obviously. 


The Chairman. In other words, your testimony is that as of to- 
day you know of no Communist Party members who have not been 
publicly exposed as members of the party? 

Mr. Wechsler. That is my offhand opinion, certainly with respect 
to Government. Whether there are people who once were Com- 
munists who have never been publicly before a committee — I haven't 
any doubt that is true. I suppose that would depend on what they 
were doing, what the relevance of their activity was. 

The Chairman. Just one further question. Do you feel that Com- 
munists should be allowed to teach in our schools? 

Mr. Wechsler. Senator, I will answer you in this way. If I were 
the dean of a college, I would not hire a Communist teacher. As the 
editor of a newspaper, I would not hire a Communist journalist. I 
think that is as explicit as I can be. I think the reasons are fairly 
obvious. I could not trust their devotion to truth above their adher- 
ence to a party line. 

The Chairman. If you were the president of a college or the editor 
of a newspaper, and if you knew of any Communists on your teaching 
staff or newspaper staff, you would discharge them if you could? 

;Mr. Wechsler. Fortunately, I have not been confronted with the 
problem. I might have a serious Guild issue with respect to that 
problem. If I had been running PM at certain phases in its history, 
I would have taken very drastic steps to get the Communists off it. I 
fought like hell to get them off. 

The Chairman. Mr. Cohn or Mr. Jackson ? 

Senator Jackson. What is the union situation on Communists who 
are members of the Guild, Communist members of the Guild who work 
for a newspaper ? Can the employer remove them under pressure ? 

Mr. Wechsler. Sir, I believe that question has been decided differ- 
ently in different arbitrations. I don't think there is a clear answer 
on the point. I think it might depend on the nature of the union con- 
tract in different shops. 

I would say that as I read our contract, I would probably have 
great difficulty firing anyone, except for catching him in an overt act 
of putting the party line into the paper or distorting the news. 

Senator Jackson. But it would have to be on that basis ? 

Mr. Wechsler. I would think so. But, as I say, I have been pretty 

Senator Jackson. What about the composing room or the mecham- 

cal department? 

Mr. Wechsler. I believe that was the case— the most recent case 
that was decided on that point was in favor of an employer dis- 
missing a man, but it was after he had messed up some type. I don t 
know of a precedent involving mere membership. 

Senator Jackson. If you know— I do not know whether you can 
answer tlys question— what is the situation at, say. General Electric 
at Schenectady? They have a bargaining contract, I believe, with 
the United Electrical ^Workers, which is a union that is obviously 
Communist dominated, if my recollection is correct. What can the 
management do ? 

Mr. Wechsler. I think it is Jim Carey's position that the manage- 
ment can do a lot to encourage anti-Communist unionism. I do not 
believe the management can do anything except in connection with 
security as to atomic contracts. 


Senator Jackson". I meant in nonsecurity work. 
Mr. Wechsler. I don't believe they can do anything. But that is 
my offliand recollection. 

Could I add just one more thing? 

The Chairjmax. I would like to ask one more question. 
Do you feel that a committee such as this has the right and duty 
to check the books by Communist authors on the information program 
shelves ? 

Mr. Wechsler. Sir, I believe that the expedition of your associates 
was one of the most absurd and fantastic wastes of taxpayers' money 
in histoi-y, because I do not believe that the presence of one book on 
one shelf is going to be a decisive issue in the battle against Com- 
munist ideas. I would say that the New York Post has been not alone 
in suggesting that the journey did more to enable the Communists to 
ridicule us than anything that has happened in many years. 
The Chairman. Will you get back to my question ? 
The question is : Do you feel that a committee such as this has the 
right and duty to check into the question of books by Communist 
authors on our book shelves throughout the world ? We are not talk- 
ing about one book. Let me finish the question. We are not talking 
about one book. We are talking about tens of thousands of books. 

Mr. Wechsler. I am sure the committee has the right to do so. I 
would question whether the committee was exercising great wisdom 
in its selection when it did so. 

The Chairman. As I recall, and I may misquote this, because I do 
not read your sheet, I understand that you have been disturbed by 
the "unfair treatment" witnesses received before this committee. 
Do you feel you were unfairly treated ^ 

Mr. Wechsler. Why, Senator, I question the basic nature of this 
proceeding. Of course I do. 

The Chairman. You feel you are unfairly treated ? 
Mr. Wechsler. I regard this proceeding as the first in a long line 
of attempts to intimidate editors who do not equate McCarthyism 
with patriotism. 

The Chairman. You have not been intimidated, have you? 
jNlr. Wechsler. Senator, I am a pretty tough guy. 
The Chairman. I say, you have not been intimidated have you ? 
Mr. Wechsler. I say this is the first of a long line of attempts to 
do so. 
The Chairman. Answer my question. Have you been intimidated ? 
Mr. Wechsler. You are not going to win this argument, Senator. 
We will go back and forth all afternoon. 

The Chairman. Have you been intimidated? 

Mr. Wechsler. Sir, I have been taken away from my work. I 
have not even had a chance to write a word today about Senator 

The Chairman. You have not been intimidated at all, have you? 
You mean you have been inconvenienced. 
The question is : Have you been intimidated ? 

Mr. Wechsler. I am fully aware that this is a proceeding designed 
to smear the New York Post. I recognize that, Senator. We are 
both grown up. But this is a free country, and I am going to keep 


The Chairman. So will the Daily Worker and every other Commu- 
nist-line paper. 

But have you been intimidated? 

Mr. Wechsler. I am afraid that is a question we would have to 
discuss with doctors and get all sorts of expert testimony on. 

The Chairman. In other words, you cannot answer that question. 

Mr. Wechsler. I say there is not any doubt this is an attempt to 
intimidate me. I trust that I have the moral courage to stand up 
under it. 

I trust that other editors will. 

The Chairman. Do you feel that you may have been intimidated ? 
Is there a doubt in your mind as to whether you have been intimidated ? 

Mr. Wechsler. We will not know, Senator, until we see whether 
as editor of the Post I keep on fighting just as hard for the things 
I believe in as I have been. I think I will. 

The Chairman. Do you think you have been intimidated ? 

Mr. Wechsler. I have great confidence in myself; so, at this mo- 
ment, Senator, I feel I have not been intimidated. 

The Chairman. Do you feel you have been abused ? 

Mr. Wechsler. Why, of course I have been abused. The sugges- 
tion that my break with communism was not authentic is the greatest 
affront that you could recite anywhere. I have fought this battle 
a long time, longer than you have. Senator, and I have taken plenty 
of beatings from the Communists in the course of that fight. I gave 
up a job on PM at a time when my wife was going to have a child. 
That was the time of a fight on communism. So, I feel very strongly 
about this. 

The Chairman. I may say, so that there is no doubt in your mind, so 
that you need not say that Senator McCarthy intimated or insinu- 
ated that you have not broken, I have been following your record, 
not as closely perhaps as I would if you were in Government, but, you 
being a newspaper editor, I have been following you somewhat. 
I am convinced you have done exactly what you would do if you were 
a member of the Communist Party, if you wanted to have a phony 
break and then use that phony break to the advantage of the Com- 
munist Party. 

I feel that you have not broken with Communist ideals. I feel that 
you are serving them 'very, very actively. Wliether you are doing it 
knowingly or not, that is in your own mind. I have no knowledge 
as to whether you have a card in the party. 

Mr. Wechsler. I appreciate that concession. 

The Chairman. I thinj?: you are doing tremendous damage to Amer- 
ica. When I find books by authors like yourself being purchased by 
the information program, we are going to check into them. I say 
this so you need not say, "McCarthy intimated or insinuated." Mc- 
Carthy did not intimate ; he said that he thinks Wechsler is still very, 
very valuable to the Communist Party. 

Mr. Wechsler. Senator, I should like to say before you leave that, 
under the standards you have established here this afternoon, the 
only way that I coulcl in your view prove my devotion to America 
and the validity of my break with communism would be to come out 
in support of Senator McCarthy. This I do not plan to do. 

The Chairman. That I am not asking you to do. If you ever did 
that, I would be worried about myself. 


Mr. Jackson, will you take over as chairman at this point ? 

Mr. Wechsler. Senator, may I add one thing for the record before 
we finish? Because I think it is again relevant to the suspicion that 
the Senator has so generously voiced. Two things. 

First, I believe that it was in the year 1943 that 2 Polish Socialists 
named Alter and Ehrlich were murdered by the Communists. There 
was great debate in America at that time as to whether there should 
be public protests over this murder, because there was the feeling in 
some places that this might jeopardize the wartime alliance with 

I want to say that I felt very strongly about that case. I believe 
that Jim Carey would be glad to testify, if the committee were inter- 
ested, that at that time I helped him to prepare the speech which he 
delivered in New York City at a public meeting — one of the few public 
meetings — protesting this murder. I might add that I tried, with 
some minor success, to get PM to take judicial notice of this Com- 
munist murder. I feel rather strongly about it because there were 
a great many people at that time who felt that it was a violation of 
protocol to raise such a question in international relations. 

I would be glad, as I say, to have Jim support me on that point. 

I would like to say, in addition, that in 19-18, or in the period after 
1946 and in 1947, when Wallaceism was in flower, American liberal- 
ism faced its biggest challenge, in that the attempted Communist 
seizure of the liberal movement was then at its peak. 

I want to say for the record that I was then one of the founders 
of Americans for Democratic Action, an organization whose anti- 
communism Senator McCarthy, I understand, would not accept, but 
which I think is accepted generally in the country, through its procla- 
mations and its activities. I think that ADA and the work it did at 
that time did more to smash the American Communist threat than 
any single activitiy that I could describe within the last 10 years. 

I think we took the liberal movement away from them. 

I see that Mr. Cohn is yawning at this point; so I will not labor 
the point. 

I would like to add just one thing further. 

Mr. CoHN. Don't interpret my yawns. 

Mr. Wechsler. Just one further thing. The Post has been fighting 
Senator McCarthy for a long time. Our editorial page, I am happy 
to say, has never wavered on this point. It is not going to change 
now, and I say again for the record that I answered freely here 
today because I do not believe that I have anything to hide or that 
the Post has anything to hide. ^ ' 

I regard this inquiry as a clear invasion of what used to be con- 
sidered the newspaper's right to act and function independently. I am 
hopeful that there will be voices raised by newspapers throughout the 
country in protest against this inquiry, but I repeat again that, rather 
than give Senator McCarthy the opportunity to distort my stand on 
that principle, I have answered all questions here to the best of my 
knowledge and recollection. 

Mr. CoHN. I have a couple of questions I would like to ask. 

Mr. Wechsler, just a few questions here. I am not quite clear on 

Did you, at any time between the time you broke with the party in 
1937, lintil 1948, go to the FBI and offer to give them what infor- 


mation you might have to aid them in their fight against commu- 
nism ? I am not clear on that. 

Mr. Weciisler. I did not go to the FBI. 1 have said several times 
here that I was visited on several occasions by FBI men and by the 
representatives of other agencies with respect to individuals. I an- 
swered freely and to the best of my knowledge and gave whatever in- 
formation I had. 

Mr. CoiiN. I was just trying to clarify whether or not 

Mr. Weciisler. As to the question of volunteering, wliich seems 
to have become a major one here, let me say that I, through the grace 
of God, was not privileged to be a member of any espionage society 
or sabotage ring while I was associated with the Young Communist 
League. The information I had, therefore, was of a somewhat less 
spectacular nature than a couple of other ex-Communists have had. 

Mr. CoHX. Xow, in 1948, do I understand that you went for the 
purpose of making a statement to the FBI ? 

Mr. Weciisler. I went to the FBI in 1948 because an FBI report 
had been submitted to Charles E. Wilson, the Wilson of General Elec- 
tric, with regard to my wife. 

The report Avas, as I have said, definitely not up to date. We clari- 
fied that report, and in the course of that interview, Mr. Nichols and 
I agreed that I would give him a detailed statement of both our per- 
sonal histories. I gave it to him. 

Mr. Coiix. I see. Now, 1 wanted to ask you this. Talking about 
your efforts to get Communists out of government, what was the edi- 
torial policy of your paper in the Remington case? 

Mr. Weciisler. I do not believe that the Post had an editorial policy 
on the Remington case, because it seems to me that what I wrote about 
that case was written before I became editor of the Post. I would 
have to check this again. 

Mr, CoHN. Oh, no. You are quite wrong about that. They ran 
a considerable number of editorials about Remington. I read them, 
and I have them. 

Mr. Wechslfjr. Well, I would have to check them. 

Mr. CoHN. They are all favorable to Remington, incidentally. 

Mr. Weciisler. Let me state on the record, since you have raised 
this, that my position on the Remington case was a perfectly simple 

When Remington was first accused, long before the proceeding got 
near the courts, he went to Joe Rauh, and asked Joe to be his lawyer. 
Rauh spent some hours with Remington examining and cross-exam- 
ining him, and finally became persuaded that Remington had not been, 
as charged, a member of the Conflmunist Party or the Young Com- 
munist League. 

I was convinced, on the basis of Joe's examination, that this was a 
case worthy of journalistic interest. 

Let me say that the most active part I took in the case was in cover- 
ing an aspect of the story which strengthened my original feeling 
about it. That aspect was the refusal of Elizabeth Bentley to testify 
under oath before the Loyalty Review Board, a refusal which brought 
a denunciation from Seth Richardson, the late Seth Richardson, 
Chairman of the Board. 

Mr. CoHN. He was a member of the Board tliat cleared Remington, 
who was convicted by two juries after that. 


Mr. Weciisler. I believe lie was. He Avas also a distinguished Re- 
publican attorney. 

Mr. CoiiN. Well, I am a Democrat. That doesn't make much dif- 
ference, whether he is a Republican or a Democrat. The fact is thai 
he is on a board that cleared Remin<rton, and Remington was con- 
victed by two juries in a row. 

Mr. Wechsler. The Remington case is still pending in the courts. 
Is that right ? 

Mr. Coirx. T had been under that impression, but I believe he 

Mr. Wechsler. The procedure is that there was a delay in filing the 
appeals, as I understand it. 

Mr. Coiix. I didn't follow the details. I think at the time sentence 
was imposed, he was granted bail. I prosecuted the first case. I 
don't remember the second case. 

Senator Jacksox. I do not think there has been a connnitment. 

Mr. CoHX. I just read in the ])apers that he went to jail. I didn't 
know the details. 

Let me ask you this: You have testified before that if you had 
known any Communist in Government you would have done some- 
thing about that. 

You say Bill Hinckley was in the Young Communist League with 
you. He was in Government after that. When he was in Govern- 
ment, did you go to the FBI or some place and tell them he had been 
in the league with you '. 

Mr. Wechsler. In the first place, let me say, on Hinckley, as I 
said before, that Hinckley was a member of the group with which 
I was identified. Whether he held a card or not, I could not say, 
because there wasn't a formal procedure. I would say he was being 
extremely disingenuous if he stood on that procedure. 

My first awareness of wluit Hinckley was doing was when Hinckley 
was teaching in Maryland. 

]Mr. CuHX. In other words, your testimony is that ycm dichi't know 
he was in government. 

Mr. Wechsler. I didn't know anything about him until I read it 
in the pa]ier. 

Mr. Cohx. If you had known about his being in government you 
would certainly have communicated 

Mr. Wechsler. I certainly would not have withheld any informa- 
tion. Let me add, on that point, that there were many stages in the 
Comnuinist ])roblem in government, as you are well aware, and at 
the peak of the wartime alliance, there were Communists, as I have 
said, in the European theater, under General Clay, and he had some- 
what higher rank than I did. 

Mr. C()H^^ Now, the last question I want to ask you is this: You 
told us about your break in 1937. Our records here show that in 
1940, on two occasions, you were the signer of things published in 
the Daily Worker. 

Let me see what this is. One appears to be a letter protesting 
the action of the executive board of the American Civil Liberties 
Union in barring Communists fi'om ofiiee, which was published on 
March 19, 1940, in the Daily Worker. 

Do vou recall that? 


Mr. Wechsler. This has come up in the Lait-Mortimer deposition. 
I have no recollection of signing it, but let me add that I think it 
is perfectly conceivable that I did, "With respect to civil-liberties 
issues, I am a rather passionate civil libertarian. I would take posi- 
tions on the Smith Act that probably wouldn't accord with yours. 

Mr. CoHN. Are you opposed to the Smith Act? 

Mr. Wechsler. I have written numerous editorials denouncing leg- 
islation which deals with advocacy rather than acts. 

Mr. CoiiN. You don't think that the leaders of the Communist 
Party go as far as acts '? 

Mr. Wechsler. I think that that isn't the question. I am for any 
proceeding dealing with acts. 

And let me add that my basic opinion is that the leaders of the 
Communist Party are agents of a foreign power, and had they been 
so prosecuted I should not have quarreled with the prosecution. 

Mr. CoHN. There is another record we have, April 2, 1940, in the 
New Masses. Did you sign any letter published in the New Masses 
in April 1940 ? 

Mr. Wechsler. I have been asked about this, and the only thing 
I might have signed would be a letter opposing the outlawing of the 
New Masses. 

There, again, let me say that I am against the outlawing of propa- 
ganda as such. I would be now. I do not recall the circumstances 
of signing such a document. 

Mr. CoHN. Let me ask you this as the last question. 

Were you aware of the fact that any of your books were used in the 
information program ? 

Mr. Wechsler. No, I was not. I am rather flattered. 

Mr. CoHN. Do you think that the first two books should be used 
in the information program ? 

Mr. Wechsler. Only if they were used as objects of curiosity. I 
would not be in favor of syndicating them in the New York Post at 
the present time. 

Mr. CoHN. But the last two books, you would say, were all right? 

Mr. Wechsler. I would stand on them. 

Mr. CoHN. Do you know Reed Harris, by any chance ? 

Mr. Wechsler. I knew Reed Harris very slightly at college. I was 
a freshman at the time that he was a senior. 

Mr. CoHN. Do you know whether or not he was a Communist ? 

Mr. Wechsler. To the best of my knowledge, he was not a Com- 

Mr. CoHN. Let me ask you this. Wliat I have reference to is a 
circular of the American Student Union. I think we asked you about 
this on a prior occasion. It lists you as chairman for the American 
Student Union, of some alumni homecoming gathering, and lists Reed 
Harris as a member of the sponsoring committee. 

Was Harris a member of the American Student Union at that time? 

Mr. Wechsler. I do not believe that he could have been, because he 
graduated from college in 1931. 

This dinner was a group brought together for one occasion, of many 
men of different age, but it had nothing to do with membership in the 
Student Union. 

Senator Jackson. Was that limited to students in school ? 


Mr. Wechsler. Yes, sir. This was a dinner designed actually to 
raise money. 

Senator Jackson. As I understand, on that list there were a number 
of people. Some were Communists, and some were not Communists. 

Mr. "Wechsler. Well, there were some very valiant anti-Commu- 
nists as of that date on the list. And I would like to say, on that point. 
Senator, as long as we are making a record here, that to men like 
Xorman Thomas and others on that list, who were vigorous anti- 
Communists, but who did help us in those days, I have a great per- 
sonal debt. Because I think the fact that they didn't cast us into the 
outer darkness helped a lot of us see through the Communist business 
fairly early in our lives. And that function was an occasion on which 
they were 

Senator Jackson. What is the date of that? 1937? 

ISIr. CoHN. That is 1937, Senator. 

Senator Jackson. And you left the party, or the Young Communist 
League, in that year ? 

Mr. Wechsler. Yes. 

Mr. CoHN. You were never a member of the Party, were you ? 

Mr. Wechsler. No, as a matter of fact, and I do not cite this as 
something to stand on, membership in those days was a rather elusive 
concept. We didn't have party cards. 

Mr. CoHN. I think you said it was a matter of age. 

Mr. Wechsler. It was entirely a matter of age, the distinction be- 
tween membership and the YCL, although the programs were osten- 
sibly different. 

Senator Jackson. You will submit the other matters? 

Mr. AVechsler. Yes. 

I want to say again that I have a sense of futility in submitting it, 
since Senator McCarthy has announced he doesn't read my works, 
but maybe other members of the committee will. 

Senator Jackson. I think these matters should be included as ex- 
hibits anyway. 

Mr. Wechsler. I think these are just duplicates of stuff that you 

Senator Jackson. I think it may be better if you go over it a little 
later and get it all together so that the record will be complete here. 

Mr. Wechsler. All right. 

Do you want to give me back the ones I have turned in? 

Or do you mean to supplement them ? 

Senator Jackson. To supplement the books and documents pre- 
viously mentioned. 

Mr. Wechsler. I did say I would enter that. That is the 1942 
article from the Daily Worker. 

( Wliereupon, at 5 : 40 p. m. Friday, April 24, 1953, the hearing was 
recessed to the call of the Chair.) 



Exhibit No. 15 

[From the Congressional Record, June 9. 1952] 

Letter Fkom James A. Wechsler 

Mr. Lehman. Mr. Pi-esident, I am in receipt of <i very interesting letter from 
Mr. James A. Wechsler, editor of the New York Post, giving the facts in regard 
to certain statements recently made in the Senate. This letter will, I believe, be 
of interest to every Member of tlie Senate. I ask unanimous consent that th» 
letter be printed in the Record at this point in my remarks. 
The Presiding Officer. Is there objection? 

There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Record, 
as follows: 

New York 1'ost, 
\ew York, N. Y., June //, 1952. 
Hon. Herbert H. Lehman, 
United States Senate, 

Washington, D. C. 

Dear Senator: On page OO-lti of the Congressional Record, dated May 26, 19r»2, 
Senator McCarthy has a l)rief discussion of me in which, among otlier things, 
he says : 

"This is the same Wechsler, incidentally, who is now editor of the New York 
Post, and who admits that he was a Communist until some time in the late 1930's. 
He claims to have reformed since then, but has never, so far as we know, shown 
any indication of his reformation." 

Tliis is not the tirst occasion on which Senator McCarthy has made this point. 
On October 2. 1J».")1, he said substantially the same tiling before the Committee 
on Foreign Relations. At that time I wired the following statement to Senator 
Sparkman : 

"In connection with Senator McCarthy's attack on the New York Post and 
myself, I would deeply appreciate the insertion of the following statement in tiie 
record of your committee's hearings : 

" 'Tlie New York I'ost recently published a documented series of 17 articles 
on Senator McCarthy. These articles critically evaluated his record both before 
and after his election to the Senate. Nearly 2 weeks have passed since the publi- 
cation of those articles and Senator McCarthy has not taken issue with a single 
fact published in them. A newspaper, as you know, has no immunity ; it assumes 
full responsibility for anything it publishes. 

" "Instead of challenging the articles Senator McCarthy has chosen to make a 
personal attack on the editor of the Post and to imply that only a subversive 
newspaper could have published this series. 

"'I'm sure that Senator McCarthy knows that the Post is a militantly anti- 
Communist newspaper. I am sure he knows that the Comnninist Daily Worker 
!ias frequently denounced both the Post and its editor. I am sure that he knows 
that the Post and its editor warmly support the efforts of the United States 
Government to resist Communist aggression through military action in Korea, 
through the organization of the North Atlantic defense forces, and through 
economic aid to nations menaced by Connmuiist imperialism. Naturally these 
are all matters of public record, as are the editorial denunciations of the Post 
which appear almost daily in the Communist press. Nevertheless Senator Mc- 
Carthy chose to tell your committee that "Their (the Post) editorials parallel the 
Daily Worker's editorials." He has further attempted to discredit fiictnal 



luaterial published in the Post about him by questioning the loyalty of the Post's 

" 'I have never made any secret of my youthful Comniunist associations. They 
were ended in 1987 when I w;is 22 years old; may I add that I ended those asso- 
ciations long before Whittaker Chambers, Elizabeth P>entley. iind Louis Budenz 
did so. I have actively and imblicly opposed Communist totalitarianism since 
that time. It is a matter of public record that iu l!)4fi I resigned fi-om the 
newspai^er PM with a public statement explaining thiit I felt compelled to leave 
because the newspaper was Comnumist dominated. Prior to that time I was 
known to be one of those engaged in a long etfort to eliminate Connnunist influ- 
ence on the paper and in the American New.spaper Guild. In ll)4S I was one of 
the founders of Americans for Democratic Action which, as you know, is an 
actively anti-Communist libei-al oi-ganizatitm and specifically excludes Commu- 
nists as well as other totalitarians from membership. I am a member of the 
national executive committee of ADA. 

" 'Since Senator McCarthy has also .seen fit to attack my wife, may I add that 
she resigned from the Young Communist League in 1937 at the age of 21 and has 
similarly engaged in public anti-Communist activity since that time. 

•' "I regret the necessity for this extended statement but I believe it will be of 
interest to the members of your committee in view of Senator McCarthy's sug- 
gestion that the New York Post's exposure of him was a party-line attack. I 
would, of course, be delighted to make these statements under oath if the com- 
mittee so desired'." 

At the time that I transmitte<l this statement to Senator Sparkman I offei-ed 
to present it under oath, but he informed me that it was the view of the sub- 
committee that that would not be necessary. I am, of course, willing at any time 
to do so. But, in fact, as I noted in my statement, much of my answer to Senator 
McCarthy is on the public record — both in my own writings and public state- 
ments and the attacks which the Communists have leveled against me for more 
than a decade. I might add that any professed expert on comnmnism — such as 
Senator McCarthy— ought to know that the Communist Daily Worker's attacks 
on the Post and myself have grown even more intense in recent months because 
of the Post's continued support of the effort of the free nations to resist the Com- 
munist aggression. 

I find it hard to believe that all this material has eluded Senator McCarthy. 
However, in view of the fact that his newest attack on me has been published in 
the Congressional Record, I wonder if it would lie possible for you to insert this 
letter into the Record for the benefit of Members of Congress who have read the 
McCarthy charge. Since many of them do not see the New York Post, I feel it Is 
important to bring these facts before them. 

I realize that I am only one of many anti-Communist newspaper editors whom 
Senator McCarthy has denounced because they refused to condone his methods. I 
am sure that most Members of Congress will agree that editors so attacked in the 
pages of the Congressional Record should have an opportunity to reply in the same 
publication. I will be very grateful if you can see fit to introduce this into the 


Jimmy Wechsler. 

Exhibit No. 16 

[From the New York Post. Jainiary 2S, 19.50] 
The Triai, of Alger Hiss 

Alger Hiss stands convicted by a jury of his countrymen. The long drama 
that began in a congressional hearing room when Hiss first convincingly pro- 
tested his innocence has reached its climax. Is the ordeal over? Hiss will 
appeal and until that iiroceeding runs its <'ourse the case is not closed. Some 
friends and partisans of the defendant will remain unshaken by the verdict. The 
sense persists, even among many who do not question the .piry's finding, that 
some aspect of the story remains untold, that some human links are missing 
even if the legal pieces have been put together. Speculation about the case will 
fill the literature of our lifetime. 

Certainly Whittaker Chambers is justified in viewing the decision as personal 
vindication. In the final moments, as throughout the long conflict, the crucial 
issue was: Which of the two men lied? Twelve men and women found "lieyond 
a reasonable doubt" that it was Hiss who lie<l. In the last chapter nothing the 


defense could offer effectively refuted the mute testimony of the typewriter and 
the documents. No psychiatric disclosure could prove the Woodstock was the 
creature of a tortured imagination or that Hiss' handwriting revealed the 
"psychopathic personality" of his accuser ; the silent evidence rested impassively 
on the table in the courtroom, neither glancing at the ceiling nor shifting 
nervously in its seat. 


Why does the debate continue? Perhaps partly because there were incon- 
sistencies of detail on both sides and because no human being offered corro- 
borative (or defense) testimony as devastating as the inanimate objects which 
relentlessly demaned the defendant. Yet this gap alone would not explain the 
fascination the trial has held for our generation. Why did it matter so much? 
Why were so many men and women impelled to take sides? The answer may 
be that this was a trial which cut through the history of our time and almost 
everyone responsive to the century's turmoil felt a personal involvement in the 

To fanatic reactionaries and devout Communists the issues were always 
simplest. The analysts of the far right assumed Hiss' guilt from the moment he 
was charged. This was what they had been waiting for. It confirmed — to them — 
all their nightmare prejudices about the New Deal. Obviously men who had 
pictured Franklin D. Roosevelt as a tool or agent of Communists were en- 
thusiastically prepared to condemn Hiss without trial ; his ties with the New 
Deal were intrinsic proof of the charges. What could be more logical (they 
cried) than that Hiss should have served the Russians in international intrigue? 
All the dark imaginings of a Hearst cartoon sprang to life. This was it; the 
details were vmimportant. As for the Communists, their "double think" device 
settled all arguments. They could publicly picture Hiss as another victim of 
capitalist injustice, target of a shameless frameup for his New Deal labors. 
Privately they could tell each other it was a measure of our decline that a man 
was being hounded for transmitting information to anti-Fascist Russia more 
than a decade ago. 

Not only extremists, however, were absorbed in the trial. Many moderate lib- 
erals and conservatives ardently identified themselves with the defense. The 
nature of the onslaught against Hiss partially explained the support of some of 
his former New Deal colleagues ; they could not help feeling that they, too, were 
under attack. That alone does not explain the depth of pro-Hiss feeling among 
many liberals. Nor does it throw any light on the attachment for Hiss' 
found among many enlightened Republicans. 


Liberal partisanship, we think was a throwback to the era of the Popular 
Front. Faith in Soviet Russia was the grand illusion of American liberalism in 
the span between two world wars. Until the signing of the Nazi-Soviet pact 
thousands of Americans clung to the belief that the Russian regime, however op- 
pressive at home, was the world's last great anti-Fascist hope. Embittered by 
Chamberlain and Daladier, they accepted the Kremlin's self-portrait of interna- 
tional virtue ; they magnified democratic decadence and glorified the Russian 
foreign office. If Chambers' charges against Hiss were sustained, the story was 
a grotesque, intolerable footnote to that age of innocence. Hiss' performance, 
as described by Chambers, became a ruthless caricature of wide-eyed romanticism 
during the Popular Front years ; it revealed that the grand illusion contained the 
seeds of treason. To many who had accepted the premises of that united-front 
epoch, the conclusion that Hiss was guilty was unbearable ; they had to believe he 
was innocent of the clandestine role ascribed to him or confess they might have 
been guilty of the same terrible folly — "There but for the grace of God * * *. 
Ironically, contemporary fellow travelers, reeuacting the error of collaboration 
with the Communists, have been peculiarly incapable of accepting Chambers' 
story. Their key article of faith is the Communists are an overzealous, but 
well-intentioned species of native radical ; they do not want to be told even at 
this late date the Communist movement is, among other things, a unit of Soviet 

The emotional investment of some thoughtful conservatives in Hiss' defense is 
no less noteworthy. Hiss personified the promising American, starred for suc- 
cess. His college classmates voted him "most likely to succeed." He rose swiftly ; 
his grace and intelligence impressed nearly everyone who met him. The notion 
that a man of his breeding and background aided a Soviet spy ring was unthink- 


able: it was almost as if the honor of the Ivy League were at stake and men 
rallied to the defense of one of their own against a moody mystic who had ad- 
mittedly toiled in the Communist underground. All this may have reflected a 
profound uneasiness among conservatives. If Hiss, so clearly destined for suc- 
cess in the conventional world, was stirred even momentarily by the Communist 
mirage, his shift of allegiance was an implit'd criticism of our own society. 
Only "psychopaths' could be radicals in the conservative scheme of things; to 
men who believe we have already constructed the best of all possible worlds, 
there was a terrifying imponderable in Hiss' alleged defection. If he had lost 
faith in our way of life, nothing was secure; therefore — the sequitur is vague — 
he must be innocent. 

Finally there were sophisticated anti-Stalinists who never conceded any area 
of doubt in the Hiss-Chambers duel. They saw his guilt as vindication of their 
warnings. Dismayed by wistful suggestions that it was incredible that a man of 
Hiss" stature could be entrapped by the Communists, they often spoke as though 
it were inevitable that he had been. I'>ut it was neither incredible nor inevitable 
and the world's fate did not hinge on the outcome. 


Each man simply evolved his own theory according to his own preconceptions ; 
each became a vicarious participant in the trial. Now the extreme right rejoices 
and the "double think" Communists cry franieup, even as they search for espio- 
nage recruits among young men groping for absolutist assurances. Thoughtful 
men will avoid the celebrations and shrill outcries. Guilty as charged. Hiss is 
a tragic, lonely figure, caught in the debris of the grand illusion that Communist 
Russia would save the world. His ordeal is not over ; reason, justice, and com- 
passion plead that minds remain flexible until his last appeal is heard. 

Meanwhile, amid the raucous thunder on the right, it needs to be said that the 
conviction of Alger Hiss does not prove that the Wagner Act was a subversive 
statute, that minimum-wage laws were un-American, that resistance to Hitlerism 
was a Conmumist plot, and the New Deal a Kremlin blueprint. If anything, we 
are challenged more dramatically than ever before to make our society worthy 
of the loyalty and idealism of its promising young men and to give freedom the 
noble quality of a fighting faith. 

Exhibit No. 17 

Congress of the United States, 

House of Representatives, 
Washington, D. C, January SO, 1950. 
-Mr. James Wechsler, 

Editor, New York Post, 

New York, N. Y. 
Dear Mr. Wechsler : This is just a note to tell you that I thought your edi- 
torial on the Hiss case, published in your issue of January 23, was one of the 
most able and fair appraisals of a very difficult problem which I have seen. 
Since you probably have me categorized as one of the "reactionaries" men- 
tioned in your editorial, I thought you might be particularly interested in my 

With all good wishes, 
Sincerely yours, 

Richard Nixon, Member of Congress. 

Exhibit No. 20 

[Excerpt from New York Times, June 15, 1946] 

Five Quit PM Saying Reds Sway Editor — Almost Entire Washington Bureau 
Accuses Ingersoll of Intolerance, Exploitation 

[Special to the New York Times) 

Washington, June 14. — Five members of PM's Washington bureau — the entire 
staff but one — quit today and accused Ralph Ingersoll, editor, of yielding to 
Communist pressure, using the paper for personal exploitation, illiberalism, and 


The five are : James Wechsler, Nathan Robertson, Wilbnr Baldinger, Charles 
Michie, and Bianca Meiklejohn. The resignations left Gordon Cole as the lone 
remaining corresiwndent in the bureau. 

The mass resignation, effective immediately, was precipitated by an arbi- 
trator's decision yesterday upholding Mr. IngersoU's dismissal of three otlier 
PM Washington correspondents "for economy," but the genesis of the ill will 
between the bureau members and their editor antedates those dismissals and is 
traceable largely to issues of editorial policy. 

The three ^vho were dismissed are jNIilton Murray, president of the American 
Newspaper Guild, CIO: Elizabeth Donahue, and John Mouttoux. 

The five said in a signed statement that they dul not question the integrity 
of the arbitrator's decision, but added th:it "the situation confronting us was 
much broader than the dispute involved in the arbitration. 

''We believe," they declared, "IngersoU's policy not only endangers the future 
of PM but is a disservice to independent liberal journalism in America." They 
declared their faith in Marshall Field. I'M's president, as "an lionest and 
courageous American." 

None would say what their plans were, except that they expected to remain 
in .ionrnalism. Messrs. Wechsler, Robertson, and Michie had been employees 
of PM even before publication began on June IS. 1940. Mr. Wechsler had been 
chief of the Wa.shiiigton bureau but relinquished his managerial duties recently 
after refusing to discharge Mr. Murray, and Mr. M<)Ut(>ux, and ;\Iiss Donahue. 

The five who resigned issued this statement : 

"We have resigned from the newspajier PM today. 

"We do so with deep reluctance and regret. But we cannot in good conscience 
continue to work for Ralph Ingersoll. 

"The arbitrator's decision yesterday, upholding the dismissals of three PM 
employees 'for economy' is, of course, final. We do not question the integrity of 
that decision. But it had become increasingly appai-ent to those of ns who are 
not directly affected by the decision that we conld not remain on the paper under 
IngersoU's editorship and that the situation confronting us was much broader 
than the disimte involved in the arbitration. 

"We believe IngersoU's policy not only endangers the future of PM but is 
a disservice of independent liberal journalism in America. 

"His illiberalism and intolerance has offended many ])eople who sympathized 
with the professed aims of the i)aper. He has repeatedly 'pushed other people 
around' in flagrant violation of PM's own editoiial credo. IngersoU's use of PM 
as an organ for personal exploitation has embarrassed all of ns who feel that the 
newspaper should not be a vehicle for iirivate jiggrandizement of its editcn-. 

"Although not himself a Communist, he has continuously yielded to Com- 
munist pressure and has denounced as factionists those staff members who have 
tried to keep the i)ai-ty line out of the paper. 

"He has destroyed the confidence of those who lielieve that PM should be as 
realistic and critical in its coverage and examination of Russian foreign i)olicy 
as in its evaluation of the foreign policy of onr own Government. 

"Ever since his return to active editorship he has carried on a petty and 
vindictive campaign against the Washington bureau which has prided itself 
on its independence of any political pressure. 

"We belie\e there is a real place in America for a newspaper fulfilling the 
proclaimed ideas of P]M. Three of the undersigned have remained on the paper 
since its inception, C> years ago, because we hoped that mission could be fulfilled. 
We hope our resignations will help to persuade the board of directors to recog- 
nize the peril facing PM as a result of IngersoU's irrational and irre.sponsible 
policies, climaxed by the drastic I'eduction of the Washington Imreau. 

"We especially regret any embarrassment our action may cause to Marshall 
Field, an honest and courageous American. But we cannot in fairness to I\Ir. 
Field remain on PM under IngersoU's editorship and we feel obligated to explain 
to those who have loyally supported PM why we now feel compelled to resign." 


The newspaper PM announced last night that it had accepted the resignations 
of five members of its Washington bureau and would continue its reports through 
remaining members and the files of the Chicago Sun, the Associated Press, and 
the United Press. 

A statement by the management said : 

"In accordance with a telegraphed request, the resignations of four members 
of the PM Washington staff plus an oflice secretary have been accepted. The 


office will ('(iiitiinie to operate under the direction of Frank Hear, national editor, 
who has divided his time between Washington and New York since Jiinies 
Wechsler resifjned as chief of tlu' Washington bureau on May 7. 

'•Coverage of Washington news will be continued as usual under Mr. Bear and 
the others of the Washington stalf : Alexander 11. T"hl, (iordon Cole, and I. F. 
Stone. Mr. Stone has been on a sjjecial assignment ai)road and is returning in 
about 2 weeks. I'M will continue to receive the Washington reiwrt of the Chicago 
Sun. the Assoc-iated I'ress, and the I'nited I'l-ess." 

John T. McManus. president of the NewspaiJer (Juild of New York, disassociated 
the New York unit from the resignation of the ."> I'M Washington emidoyees and 
said it was something that should be considered apart from "the determine<l 
tight" the New York Guild had put up on behalf of ;> writers who weie discharged. 
.Mr. McManus was reached in Scranton. I'a., where he is attending a meeting of 
the international executive board of the American Newspaper Guild, CIO, pre- 
paratory to a convention next week. 

While accepting the report of the arbitrator upholding PM's contention of 
economy discharges. Mr. McManus said the guild was disappointed with the 
finding and did not feel it did Justice to the three individuals involve<l. 

Exhibit No. 21 
[Fiom the Daily Worker, December 22. 1942] 

PM AND Communists 
(By Milton Howard) 

The nervous self-consciousness of certain PM writers about the Communist 
Party is interfering with that paper's accuracy in sheer news reporting. Anti- 
Communist pre.iudice is warping the facts witli growing frequency. 

PM's readers are already familiar with its piece of journalistic sleight-of-hand 
in which it recently translated the imprisonment of Jan Valtin for his as.socia- 
tions with the Nazi Gestapo into an "anti-Communist" report in which the word 
Nazi did not appear at all. 

Anti-Connnunist jitters, in this case, resulted in a distortion. I'M's readers 
were not informed of the sheer facts in the case. 

That this is no isolated incident, but springs from some deep well-spring of 
political prejudice, is indicated by the loony demand of PM's Washington bureau 
chief, Kenn(>th Crawford, that the Conununist Party "dissolve itself."' Mr. 
Crawford says that this would deprive Martin Dies of a bad word — communism — 
witii which to clul) the liberals, and therefore their lives (the liberals) would be 
more comfortable. 

Then, there is the case of James W^. Wechsler. an ex-Communist, who. in his 
work in PM's Washington bureau, displa.vs the t.vpical jitters of an "ex" since 
he is never «pute sure that the Dies connnittee or the influential people he wants 
to impress will accept his conversion at its face value. 

Wechsler suffers especially since the Dies committee launched the cry that 
some "Communists" announce their desertion of "conuuunism" only the better 
to propagate their "communism." ( In this view, even the abolition of poll tax 
is described as "communism.") 

Such chronic suspicion of "ex-Communists" is. of course, an occupational 
hazard of that tribe which would have only a private clinical interest, were it not 
for the fact that Wechsler, apparently, is a determining voice in PM's political 

For example, both Crawford and Wechsler of PM's Washington burt>au spread 
the viewpoint that the landing of American troops in Africa constituted a rebuke 
to the popular movement for a second front in Europe, and. from now on. the 
people had better keep quiet and refuse to be organized into any other movements 
concerning the war. 

Wechsler. writing this time in the December issue of the American News- 
paper Guild, used the l)rilliant American otTensive in Africa to l)elabor his 
favorite iioint — that .something should lie done to the "Comnjunists." 

He attacked the democratic mass movement for an attack on Hitler as made 
up of "angry resolutions * * * bitter whisperings *  * and ugly hints. 


That the second-fi'ont movement always was and still is, the movement for 
supporting Roosevelt and Churchill against the defeatists who seek to delay 
any offensive whatsoever — this obvious fact is twisted into its opposite by PM's 
Wechsler. From Wechsler's point of view, our invasion of Africa is a con- 
firmation not of the people's feeling that attack was superior to defense as a 
tactic, but a confirmation of Wechsler's special political line that the people 
ought not to help the Government against its enemies. If Wechsler is right, 
then there is no longer a fifth column in America, and Roosevelt no longer has 
any enemies against whom he needs the peojtle's support. Which is clearly 

It is a curious thing that it is in the name of unity that Wechsler preaches 
this doctrine of mass inertia in the face of quisling propaganda. 

Those who urged an offensive strategy, he says, did so because ''they seat 
themselves vicariously in the seat of the Kremlin" and "are the real foes of na- 
tional solidarity." 

Wechsler pictures an attack upon Hitler as being solely a "Kremlin" demand, 
thus besmirching the government's United Nations' alliance and urging a "no- 
attack-on-Hitler" policy in the same breath. 

To prove his view that only by refusing to fight the anti-government intrigues 
of the defeatists does not prove one's national solidarity. Wechsler cites the case 
of the recent CIO convention. At this convention, he writes, the "leftists" were 
prepared to attack Philip Murray and disrupt the CIO with their second front 
campaign: "He (Murray) hadn't joined the second front clamor. He would 
have to be told off. * * *" But the CIO was saved from an internal split by 
the African offensive. "All the angry resolutions and ugly hints are thrown out 
of court." 

But hei*e again, PM's Wechsler is quite inaccurate. For while Mr. Wechsler 
was eagerly anticipating a CIO fight against the second front, ClO President 
Murray had already, in his prepared ofiicial report, stated the labor movement's 
support for the second front. 

Murray, further, warned the CIO convention : 

"There are appeasers and agents of Hitler who seek to challenge the deci- 
sions of our leaders to put into effect the people's earnest desire for the supreme 
offensive — the second front— which must carry the United Nations to victory. 
The reasons offered are couched in terms of hesitation, weakness, and defeat- 
ism" (report, p. 8). 

Thus Philip Murray slapped down the Wechslers. 

It was not the "leftists" who were dismayed by the African operation ; it was 
Wechsler who boasts "I stick by the confused and chaotic people ' instead of the 
firm lead of the labor movement. Wechsler had been hoping for and working 
a split. The opening of the offensive disappointed his hope. 

But is it fair to PM's readers that Wechsler's private worries as a renegade 
Communist should produce inaccurate reporting? 

It is due to Wechsler's influence that PM, alone of all the New York news- 
papers, suppressed from its news report Premier Sikorski's warning: "The Ger- 
mans will try to frighten the democracies liy the threat of bolshevism. * * *" 

Why did PM cut this crucial passage out of its reporting? 

We think that this jittery group in PM's staff which warps news to conform 
to its desire to conciliate Martin Dies ought to heed these words of a public 
man who sees the danger of red-baiting. 

"I believe that anyone who lets his fear of communism warp his judgment is 
really very insecure in his love for and confidence in real democracy." 

Marshall Field, the owner of PIM, said that last week. 



Alter 277 

American Civil Liberties Union — 279 

American Newspaper Guild 270, 274, 283, 286, 287 

American Society of Newspaper Editors 256 

American Student Union 255, 269, 280 

American Youth Congress 259 

Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) 277, 283 

Associated Press 286, 287 

Baldinger, Wilbur 286 

Bear, Frank 287 

Bendiner, Robert 257, 258 

Benliner 257 

Bentley, Elizabeth 278, 283 

Berstein, Colonel 263, 2(W 

Budenz, Louis 273, 283 

Carev, Jim 274, 277 

Casey, James 259, 260 

Chamberlain 284 

Chambers, Whittaker 273, 283, 285 

Chicago Sun 286, 287 

CIO 264, 286, 287, 288 

Clay, General 264, 279 

Cole, Gordon 287 

Columbia University 269 

Compass 265 

Crawford. Keiuieth 287 

Daily Worker 257, 259, 262, 271, 272, 276, 279, 281, 282, 283, 287 

Daladier 284 

De Voto, Bernard 267 

Dies, Martin 271, 287, 288 

Donahue, Elizabeth 286 

Dubinsky 257 

Ehrlich 277 

ETO 264, 

Field, Marshall 286, 288 

Foreign Relations Conmuttee 282 

General Electric 274, 278 

Green, Gill 255 

Harris, Reed 280 

Hearst 284 

Hinckley, Bill 267, 279 

Hiss, Alger 261, 273, 283. 284, 285 

Hoover. J. Edgar 260 

Howard. Milton 287 

Ingersoll, Ralph 271, 285, 286 

Ivy League 285 

Jenner, Bill 262, 263 

Kempton. Murray 257, 259 

Lait-Mortimer 280 

Lash, Joseph R 254, 259, 260 

Lavine, Harold 254 

Lawson, Arthur 255 

Lehman, Herbert H 282 

Lewis, John L 254,268 

Lewis, John P 264, 265 

Llpper, Eleanor 273 



Loyalty Review Board 278 

Marshall 271 

McMamis 287 

INIeiklejohn, Bianca 286 

Michie, Charles 286 

Mouttoux, John 286 

Murray, Milton 286 

Murray, Philip 288 

Nation 269,270 

New Masses 257. 280 

New York Post 256,257,258,259, 

260, 261, 262, 265, 268, 271, 273, 275, 276, 277, 278, 280, 282, 283. 285 

New York Times 262,269,271,272,285 

Newspaper Guild of New York 287 

Nichols. Lou 260, 266. 267. 27S 

Nixon. Richard 261, 285 

Nixon. Russ 264 

PM Magazine 265, 270, 271, 272, 274, 276, 277, 285, 286, 287, 288 

President's Committee on Civil Rights 265 

Progressive 262 

Rauh, Joe 278 

Remington 278, 279 

Reutlier 257 

Richardson. Seth 278 

Robertson, Nathan 286 

Robertson, Nate 271 

Roosevelt, Franklin D 284,288 

Rushmore, Mr 253, 259, 270, 272 

Sikorski, Premier 272, 288 

Smith Act 280 

Social Democratic Federation 257,259,260 

Sparkman, Senator 282, 2&3 

Stalin, Joe 262, 269 

Stevenson, Adlai 273 

Stone, I. F 287 

Strack, Celeste 267 

Thackrey 265 

Thomas, Norman 281 

Time Matrazine 269 

Truman. President 257, 271 

Uhl, Alexander H 287 

Un-American Activities Committeee 261,262 

United Electrical Workers 274 

I'nited Press 286, 287 

Valtin. Jan 287 

Velde " 263 

Wagner 285 

Waldman, Louis 260 

Wallace 267,277 

Wechsler, James A 282,283,286,287,288 

Testimony of 253, 281 

White, Harry Dexter 263^264 

Wilson. Charles E '278 

Witt, Bert 267 

Young Communist League 254,255 

256, 257. 258, 262, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 273, 278, 279, 281,' 283