The second letter is written by me and deals with an attack on Senator Dodd. When your name, Senator, was mentioned by a student with respect to your latest statement on Vietnam, one of the academic speakers in a recent Stanford debate twice referred to you as "paranoid."

Senator DODD. I have been called worse than that.

Mr. PossoNY. Yes, sir. On the other hand, that is not the way to debate objectively. I limited myself to making the strictly formal point that name calling is no academic way to argue with opponents, especially in their absence. I also reminded my colleagues of such virtues as respect, manners, and tact, and of one of the key attributes of a good scholar-that of being a gentleman.

I would like to put this into the record also.

Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Chairman, if it is permitted, while it is, of course, as the Chair has said, that Dr. Possony is a recognized authority, might the order be that a brief statement of his educational qualifications in this area be inserted in the record also?

Senator DODD. Very well.

Mr. PosSONY. You mean I should send it to you?

Mr. SOURWINE. I do not think you need to prepare anything. The committee can do this very readily.

(A brief résumé of Dr. Possony's qualifications follow:)

RÉSUMÉ OF STEFAN T. POSSONY

Born 1913 in Vienna, Austria, educated in Austria, Germany, Italy, France, and United States.

Freelance writer on economic, international, and military affairs, 1935–39; adviser, French Air Ministry, 1939-40; psychological warfare officer, French Foreign Office, 1939-40; foreign language broadcaster, Columbia Broadcasting System, New York, N.Y., 1941-43; Carnegie research fellow, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, N.J., 1941-42; psychological warfare specialist, Office of Naval Intelligence, Navy Department, Washington, D.C., 1943-46; special adviser to U.S. Air Force, Headquarters, USAF, Pentagon, Washington, D.C., 1946-61; professor of international politics, Graduate School, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., 1946-61; visiting professor and associate, Foreign Policy Research Institute, University of Pennsylvania, 1955 to date; director of international political studies program, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif., 1961 to date.

Author of books and articles. Lectures on international affairs, strategy, and communism. (Lectured all over United States, also in Canada, Austria, and France.)

Recent publications: "Lenin, the Compulsive Revolutionary," Chicago, Regnery, 1964; "Strategie des Friedens, Sicherheit und Fortschritt im Atomzeitalter,' Cologne, Verlag Wissenschaft und Politik, 1964.

Mr. PossoNY. Thank you very much. I should like to insert these two letters from the Stanford Daily for the record now.

Senator DODD. Very well.

(The two letters referred to follow :)

[From the Stanford Daily, Stanford University, May 11, 1965]

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

BAY, CRAIG ASSAILED FOR VIETNAM SPEECHES

EDITOR, THE DAILY:

Last fall it was my privilege to endorse Senator Thomas Dodd's candidacy for reelection to the U.S. Senate. As a Republican I endorsed a Democrat because of his impressive record as one of the country's most foresighted experts in international relations."

I was, therefore, greatly shocked when in a public debate on United States Vietnam policy, Mr. Christian Bay, on May 7, 1965, in Cubberley Hall, twice treated the Senator as "paranoid." There was no doubt in my mind that the

epithet really was addressed to the President of the United States.

Since the times of Aristotle, name calling has had no place in logic. It surely has no place in a debate between scholars. Moreover, defamation is a totalitarian, not a democratic technique. A member of the academic community who, without reason and without proof, alleges that a meritorious public servant is mentally sick, sets a bad example to students and shows lack of manners and tact. Scholars are expected to be gentlemen.

Mr. Bay's remarks were flowing over with moral indignation.

Since smear tactics are immoral, I find it difficult to believe that Mr. Bay is a qualified judge of morality.

Just like charity should start at home, the morality of those academics who would criticize the ethics of U.S. foreign policy should start on the campus.

EDITOR, THE DAILY:

CRAIG QUESTIONED

STEFAN T. POSSONY,
Hoover Institution.

Professor Craig on Friday in White Memorial Plaza stated quite rightly that we must not become "lost in history." But neither should we wander too far from it. In this respect I found much of his analysis misleading. For example: First, the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall plan did not stop the guerrillas in Greece. As Prof. R. L. Wolff has written the crucial factors were the purging of the guerrilla leaders and the closing of the borders by Tito. The analogy to Vietnam is strained.

Second, the Truman Doctrine did not contain communism in areas where circumstances made this doctrine inapplicable. Thus in China neither guns nor money could prop up Chiang Kai-shek. Asian problems are not solved by European answers.

Third, aid in the manner of the Marshall plan will not save us in southeast Asia. The Marshall plan was designed to "assist in the return of normal economic health" in well-organized societies whose traditions, economies, and politics were basically harmonious with our own. In Asia mere "reconstruction" and limited assistance is not enough. An infinitely more massive and sophisticated program must be developed if we are to provide the rudiments of stability in even the "safe" areas. Years of negligence are not so easily redeemed.

Fourth, we cannot simply "draw a line" and declare the Vietcong "contained" as Professor Craig suggests. We find ourselves fighting a people who believe they are only reuniting a country which was unfairly truncated by a French puppet regime in Cochin China and again after the failure of the 1954 Geneva accords calling for the unification of the nation. Further more in the military sense it is pointless to construct a Hadrian's wall when the barbarians are already on both sides.

The cost in southeast Asia is going to be great, but we will not gain any "repute" by sticking fingers in dikes after the dikes have burst. The real question is how we are going to acquite ourselves with honor, and what steps are we going to take to prevent repeat performances in Asia, Latin America, and Africa. Rather than losing ourselves in the history of the Marshall plan we should begin to look at the problems in Asia-now.

MARK BOSTWICK.

Mr. PossoNY. I have recently had the opportunity to speak to several student audiences on several California campuses. I did not speak in Berkeley, but in some other campuses of northern California and I would like to comment on my impressions from these experi

ences.

There is no question that the university youth has become radicalized in comparison with earlier times.

I do not know whether you can compare the present agitation with the happenings in the 1930's, but I feel that it is rather self-evident that the national and international significance of what is going on in the colleges today is far greater than that of precedent events some 30 years ago. There has been a publicized decision made by the Com

48-485-65-pt. 1

munist Party of the United States to direct much of its effort on the university youth.

In former times, the Communist Party considered itself to be a proletarian party. The class conscious worker was regarded as the core member and the factory was the party's main recruiting ground. Industrial strikes were the foremost method of struggle through which the Communist Party was to grow stronger. That the orthodox Marxian scheme did not always fit is a matter of historical record. Both Lenin and Mao Tse-tung felt compelled to deemphasize the proletariat and rely strongly on the peasantry. As early as 1902, Lenin argued that the professional revolutionaries who must run the party will be intellectuals. But Marx and his followers were highly suspicious of such groups as the Lumpenproletariat, the rootless Bohemian or beatnik as we would say today, and the broken-down intellectual. The physician without patients, the lawyer without clients, and the eternal student of billiards, as Marx once phrased it, were not considered good revolutionary timber.

Yet Castro proved that nowadays enthusiastic, idealistic college students can be the ideal recruits for revolution. The main recruiting must be done precisely among those rootless intellectuals and loudmouthed activists whom, because of their lack of inner stability, the true Marxists and Leninists despised. In the contemporary scheme of things, and in the tactical conditions that presently prevail in the United States, the student has taken the place of the proletarian, the university has been substituted for the factory, and political activity on the campus, and from the campus, including rallies and demonstrations, is temporarily the preferred form of struggle. Naturally, those are purely preliminary tactics.

As a result of the decision to go among the students, leading party functionaries like Gus Hall have gone on speaking tours through academe. However, this party decision is only one of the factors which has led to the present radicalization.

Mr. SOURWINE. Dr. Possony, I do not mean to anticipate you, but you have made a comparison between the 1930's and the present time. Similarly, do you include the fact that both then and now there is a very vigorous Communist drive among the youth?

Mr. PosSONY. That is correct.

Mr. SOURWINE. On campuses?
Mr. PosSONY. That is correct.

Mr. SOURWINE. Would there not also be some dissimilarities which mark a changing tactic on the part of the party?

Mr. PosSONY. Yes, sir.

Mr. SOURWINE. In 1930, was it not true that a large part of the approach was through so-called Marxist study groups; that there was less emphasis on demonstrations?

Mr. POSSONY. Yes.

Mr. SOURWINE. Whereas currently, there is little or no emphasis on so-called study groups, but a great deal of emphasis on trying to take over the leadership of student causes with existing followings or to create causes in which Communist leadership may take a part, if there is no such cause existing in the area.

Mr. PosSONY. This is correct. However, the new technique of the teach-in is an enlargement, and perhaps an improvement, of the old

study group technique. When you talk with some of the people who profess their "concern," and they heckle you in debates, it is quite evident that they have come prepared. They possess a fair amount of background information, which they obtained from the same sources, and it is interesting that the same trick questions are asked on various campuses. A few weeks later a different set of questions is ready. The hecklers also are armed with the same quotes or misquotes. So I would think that the old technique of the study group still is very much in evidence.

Mr. SOURWINE. But this is a different pattern in that the Marxist study groups of the 1930's were designed to operate primarily on those who participated, whereas the teach-ins are designed primarily as a propaganda vehicle to influence those who do not participate, but do watch. In other words, it has become a spectator sport.

Mr. PossoNY. The teach-in is not the only activity. There also are discussion groups, and meetings of the numerous radical organizations that exist on campuses. Open discussions, the participation of radical speakers in public debates with differently oriented speakers, speeches at rallies, and demonstrations must necessarily be preceded by study group activity. The large and more or less one-sided teach-in might be described as a front study group. This new technique is suited to reach larger numbers. It also may be more effective than old-fashioned indoctrination because it involves debate. The teach-in involves front organization techniques in this sense: if everything goes according to plan, the operation is organized by a radical or Communist group. On the day of the meeting, the radical cause is represented by a larger number of radical speakers, many of whom are given a strong publicity buildup. Speakers of opposing viewpoints are invited to participate, but the invitations are usually issued too late and they are presented to people who are not experienced in selecting effective speakers, or who have no real access to them, not to mention the fact that to set up an effective counterorganization requires time and money. It is, of course, true that opponents of the radical point of view have not remained idle, and in some instances were able to insure that the teach-in became more of an educational effort. But the organizers usually have the organizational advantage that they select the discussion leaders, and that they can orchestrate audience responses to various speakers. The orchestration technique, sometimes aided by walkie-talkies, is quite important and allows the best organized radical group to achieve a measure of control. The new front technique is by no means ideal from every radical point of view; but it has several enormous advantages. In particular, it gives the radicals a forum, which otherwise they might not have, and it creates the impression that a minority viewpoint is considerably more popular than it really is. This art of pretending strength is especially effective when there is TV coverage.

Mr. SOURWINE. You use the word "front" there which is what I was attempting to lead up to with the two prior questions.

Is it not the new tactic, in a sense, an adaptation of one of the two facets of the old united front technique to the particular subject of infiltration and gaining influence among students on campuses?

Mr. PosSONY. Yes.

Mr. SOURWINE. I mean by that, that the old united front technique went two ways: one was to pull together with the party, for a party

objective, a number of non-Communist organizations who were interested or could be interested in the particular objective; and the second was by making the party appear to be in line with some particular cause on the campus and forming a liaison with the cause and then trying to appear to be out front and take over leadership of the merged group; and that second tactic has been pushed in the current era far beyond anything that was done in the 1930's; is that not true?

Mr. POSSONY. I think this is correct. The united front techniques is presently favored by most Communist groups in the United States and it is pushed by Moscow. However, one other point ought to be added and that is that in the 1930's there was a very tight control by the Communist Party. To use the old Stalinist term, there was monolithic control.

Now, the present situation is quite different, in two ways. First of all, you do not find in the argumentation that is presented any overemphasis on the orthodox doctrines of Marxism and Leninism. Many avowed Communist groups parade their doctrinal purity and oppose "revisionism," but many other radicals, when you start quoting Lenin or Marx to them, will reply that they are not interested in "old stuff." They emphasize that they are "nonsectarian" which, of course, is in line with the 1935 decision of the Seventh World Congress of the Comintern. This 30-year-old decision at long last is having a real effect, I think, in a very dramatic way.

In passing, I would like to express my belief that this new nondoctrinaire approach in many ways is predicated on the so-called deStalinization program which has been carried out in the Soviet Union. It appears that the criticism of Stalin was a smart move to get rid of many albatrosses that were hanging around the party's neck. The current lack of orthodoxy has given the Communist ideology a new lease on life. At the same time, of course, it can be predicted that sooner or later doctrinaire uniformity will have to be reimposed lest the radical movement split in hundreds of sects. The question is whether control will be reimposed by the CPUS or the China-oriented Progressive Labor Movement-now renamed Progressive Labor Party-which also is upholding Marxism-Leninism and which in its Marxist-Leninist Quarterly (published in Brooklyn, N.Y.) has been accusing the Soviet Union of "revisionism." This people have been coming out strongly in favor of the "continuous revolutionary process." This previously was called the "permanent revolution."

The second element of change is therefore that, unlike in the 1930's, the Communist Party no longer is the predominant unit and that the Soviet-oriented part of communism may not be the decisive element at this time. I am, of course, aware of the enormous role CPUS organizers and W. E. B. du Bois "clubs" (or cells) are playing. However, the style of contemporary rallies and of the literature distributed there would indicate that Mao Tse-tung and Castro have gained considerable intellectual ascendancy. There also are Stalinist and Trotskyite elements, and other radicalisms, including Communists, parading under a Socialist label.

Now, to what extent these people are committed to the same basic ideology is a question which will have to be examined. But the differences which are ascribed to "ideology" are really more operational in nature and presumably these groups have interlocking and "inter