NAVAL OFFICERS' WORLD AFFAIRS SEMINAR

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP83-00423R001200840002-4
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 13
• Document Creation Date: November 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 8, 1999
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: September 23, 1953
• Content Type: SPEECH

Approved For Releas.,1999/09/10 : CI R!3P'AK 423R 0120084
NAVAL OFFICERS' WORLD AFFAIRS SEMINAR
I John Morley
U .' S., 'Accredited War Correspondent & News Analyst
23 September 1953
25X1A2g
Today's speaker is a United States accredited War Correspondent and
syndicated columnist, recently back from his third consecutive assignment
around the world in the past three years and his tenth trip to Korea since
1950. He comes to us today direct from St. Louis where he addressed the
35th National Convention of the American Legion and Legion Auxiliary under
the auspices of the National Legion Auxiliary, with such dignitaries as
Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and Vice President Richard Nixon. He
is author. of the syndicated column "After Hours",. His. writings have appeared
in the Saturday Evening Post, Ladies Home Journal and other magazines and
newspapers throughout the world. His subject today is "Eyewitness 1953 World
Report...Uncensored!". Mr. John Morley.
My thanks to you, Captain McIntyre.voand to your Seminar Committee for
the compliment of your invitation to speak to you today. It is a personal
pleasure for me to be speaking to officers and personnel of the 13th Naval
District here in typical Navy atmosphere. You see, during the past several
months and several years I have been exposed to Navy surroundings from
private visits with Secretary of the Navy Anderson and Admiral Arthur Radford,
as well as the more active side of the Navy when I covered the 77th Task
Force off Korea waters, reporting their heroic achievements in defense of
our ground troops in Korea,,.
Because you have made me feel a part of your team in Korea and your
generous receiption here this afternoon, I am inspired to let my hair down,
so to speak, and report things to you which normally I would not make avail-
able for public consumption.
Reporter's Responsibility is to Report
Our job as reporters is to report. It is not to impose personal
opinions., pretend final 'answers', or presume powers of prediction from a
private crystall ball. Our duty is to rush to the hot-spots of the world
and report what we SEE.-drawing upon our experience for sober, unemotional,
unbiased evaluation of FACTS. Given the naked truth, intelligent Americans
can assist their Government in determining the 'answers' that safeguard
America.
My report this afternoon begins from the West Coast to Washington, D.C.
and then from. Europe through the Middle East, India, Africa, Southeast Asia
to.F`Qrmosa, Korea and back to the West Coast. I left California in February,
o
e
1953
. and
pen
d my lecture season this last September in St. Louis.
Approved For Release 1999/09/10 : CIA-RDP83-00423R001200
 The m ica
th# Ve i Fsie o J fit' Coghr'eS~Ss- "7.eadA pth
spiritual emphasis which seems to permeate in high governmental and military
.offices. Time and time again I heard important officials refer to their
,,Christian faith more often than I have ever heard it before in my frequent
trips to Washington.
l was impressed with a new emphasis on security. My briefing as a War
Correspondent on my way to cover military zones in Korea was more thorough
'han,any previously experienced. In view of past laxities,, as proven by
recent'exposes of espionage, it is heartening and encouraging to observe
,this greater vigilance and careful scrutiny of men like myself assigned to
confidential military zones. I learned that this careful screening is con-
ducted on personnel into other phases of governmental assignment..
'I left Washington for Europe with more optimism that the Ship of State.,
civilian and military,, was in more capable hands than at any time in the
past.
Eyewitness Report from Britain
It was my privilege again to interview the eminent Prime Minister of
Britain,'Sir Winston Churchill, and other prominent members of the House of
Commons, Since my last interview with him, he had been honored by his
appointment as a "Knight of the Garter". I slipped up by calling him., ""Mr.
Churchill" and he reminded me,, smiling, that he was now a Knight of the
Garter and should be addressed as "Sir". I asked him how he felt as a
Knight of the Garters His answer was typically Churchillian. "I donut feel
a damn bit different, except that I have a terrible time keeping up the
bther sock. r9
In an interview with Mr. Richard Butler, Secretary of the Exchequer, I
asked him for the latest report on the financial condition of Britain. You
will be surprised, as I was, to get his optimistic reply. "We are better off
financially today," Mr. Butler said, "than at any time since the end of World
War IL 11 Here are the facts of Mr,,Butleras optimism.
Early in 1953 the British Government reduced income taxes about 18%
across th.e board.. They reduced or eliminated most of the amusement and sport-
ing event & taxes,, as well as taxes on hundreds of personal items and household
goods. This economic windfall for the British people resulted in Britain col-
lecting more, taxes than prior to these reductions.. It is another proof that
when you give people an incentive for more take-home pay,, they work harder and
produce more with the result that the government treasury is ahead of the game.
CHURCHILL in Bad.Health
Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill is a very sick man. I was told by
people close to him that he had suffered two strokes this year. At 79 he is
declining fast and considerable anxieties are heard in London as to his ability
to carry on. He certainly was in no physical condition to go to Moscow, as was
recently rumored. Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden, in announcing that the Prime
Minister was not going to Moscow, evidently convinced Sir Winston that his
physical condition did not warrant it.
Approved For Rele3,se 1999/09/10: CIA-RDP83-00423R001200840002-4
 Approved For Relea 1999/09/10 : CIA-RDP83-00423R001200840002-4
Eyewitness Report from Germany
The brilliant victory of Dr. Konrad Adenauer and his more recent victory
in the state of Hamburg is the most optimistic report of present day Germany.
When one realizes the Communist gains in Italy and France in recent months and
the declining power of Communism in Germany, we begin to realize that our
former enemies have become the greatest bulwark against Soviet aggression in
Europe today. Here are three figures which show the importance of Germany in
the Free World today. In this Summer's critical elections, which I covered in
Italy, one out of every three Italian voters supported the Communist Party.
In France one out of every four voters vote Communist. In Germany one out of
every 158 votes was Communist in the recent elections. This doesn't neces-
sarily mean that the Communist Party in Italy and France is gaining converts,
but that many of these increasing votes are cast by non-Communists merely as a
protest against the prevailing governments. This is a very important point to
understand, particularly in Italy and France, where the Communist power appears
to be increasing.
The man responsible for Germany's staunch support of democratic
principles
and alliance with the Free World is Dr. Konrad Adenauer. This courageous
Christian man, who defeated the Reds in 1953, did the same to Hitler's Nazis in
1933. His democratic principles became apparent back in the 309s when Hitler's
conspiracy raised the Nazis into power in Germany. Among the few who dared to
defy Hitler was the Mayor of the city of Cologne, who refused to permit the
Nazi swastikas to supersede the flags of the German Republic, in those days
under dying President Von Hindenburg. Because of this defiance Hitler arrested
Cologne's Mayor and kept him in a concentration camp between 1933 to 1945, when
the United States' victorious armies liberated Germany. The man who defied
Hitler in those days was Dr. Konrad Adenauer, who today is continuing his
defiance of enormous Communist pressures from the East.
Eyewitness Report from Yugoslavia
Marshall Tito, President of the Republic of Yugoslavia, is probably the
most controversial figure in Central Europe today. I have had the opportunity
to speak with him before and after U. S. economic assistance was made available
to Yugoslavia. There is considerable misunderstanding about this Communist
Dictator and whether or not the United States can afford to place such confi-
dence in him. One day I asked President Eisenhower if he trusted Tito.
was when General Eisenhower was Supreme Head of NATO in Paris. President This
Eisenhower's reply was typical of most Army and Navy Commanders I have spoken
to on the subject. "Mr. Morley," General Eisenhower said, "as a military man
I am chiefly concerned with the creating of an army to defend Europe and the
Free World against any Communist aggression. I am not concerned about Marshall
Tito's politics. I know he has about a million seasoned, veteran troops. This
is a greater army than all of NATO's present military manpower. I also know
that Tito is a marked man by the Russians and he needs our help just as we can
use his."
Trouble Inside Russia
I had an unexpected opportunity to talk to Marshall Tito during the course
of a peasant outing which he and his wife, Jovanka, attended. I asked him for
Approved For Release 1999/09/1G3: CIA-RDP83-00423R001200840002-4
 his opinion on conditio,? hp iO~O ~ 1 ( 4 1y
PFQM f@ as S.
ussia tan any o er nation and
I suppose the same thing applies to the satellite countries. My impression
of his reaction and that of other Yugoslavian officials is that the days of
George Malenkov are numbered and the man to watch in Russia today is popular
Marshall. Gregory Zhukov.
This is not the first time your reporter has observed this popularity
of Marshall Zhukov. In some dozen trips behind the Iron Curtain since 1950
I noticed that more and more of Zhukov's portraits were displayed in the
windows of residences and stores which used to display the pictures of
Stalin and Lenin. This is a very significant change of events. When one
realizes there are 200,000,000 people in Russia. and less than 5,000,000 of
these are Communists, it is apparent that the popularity of a Soviet Marshall
would be greater than that of a Communist leader. The rise of Marshall
Zhukov dates back to 1943 when he engineered the military strategy that led
to the surrender at Stalingrad of German General Von Paulus and 350,000
Nazis. It was this military catastrophe against Hitler that broke the back
of the Nazi invasion of Russia in 1943. Marshall Zhukov is also credited
with liberating Moscow and Leningrad. By the end of the war in 1945, he
was unquestionably the only Russian actually challenging the popularity of
Dictator Stalin. Because of this challenge to his Communist throne, Stalin
removed Zhukov and demoted him to the Odessa military garrison, taking him
out of the limelight of Russian popularity. After the death of Stalin this
Spring, his successor, Georgi Malenkov, was immediately challenged by
Lavrenti Beria, head of the Soviet Secret Police. To meet this challenge
Malenkov needed the support of Zhukov and the Red Army, so he brought
Zhukov back to Moscow from Odessa.and with his assistance arrested Beria
and his lieutenants and threw them into prison. As matters stand today, it
is the opinion of Marshall Tito and other experts on conditions inside
Russia that Zhukov is in an excellent position to challenge the power of
the Communist Party. It is true that Zhukov carries a Communist Party card,
but like Konev, Timoshenko and other Red officers, their membership in the
Communist Party is more for reasons of expediency and promotion rather than
belief in.the Communist ideology.
The. Trouble in Trieste
The tempest of Trieste really began in 1919 when the Allies took
Trieste from Austria-Hungary and gave it to our then ally, Italy, after
World War I. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles was President Woodrow
Wilson?s righthand man at Versailles and was in on this deal. "This Trieste
problem is going to give us trouble some day," Dulles was quoted as saying
to. President Wilson in 1919. Today, it. appears to have been the under-
statement of the Century.
From 1919 to 1945 Italy ruled Trieste and during these 26 years forcibly
took away the land of Austrians, Croats and Slovenes and offered it as a
reward to Italian citizens willing to migrate to Trieste. This is the reason
why today there are five times more Italians than any other nationality in
Trieste.
At the end of World War II, with Italy on the losing end, the Allies,
took Trieste from them and under the 1947 Peace Treaty ceded the Isonzo
Approved For Relea a 1999/09/10 : CIA-RDP83-00423001200840002-4
 Approved For Relea1999/09/10 : CIA-RDP83-00423&01200840002-4
Valley and part of Trieste to Yugoslavia, later revising it under- the Morgan
Line into British and U. S. Zone A and Yugoslavian Zone B. Later, in 1948,
to help DeGasperi defeat the Communists in Italy, the U. S. and Britain
promised Italy a part of Trieste. About the same time, in order to get Tito
closer to our side after Russia threw him out of the Communist Cominform, we
made further promises of more territory around Trieste to Yugoslavia. The
trouble started a few weeks ago when the United States and Britain announced
their decision to withdraw their troops from Zone A, and inviting Italy to
take it over in accordance with the previous agreement.of 1948. As matters
stand now, our troops are still in Zone A waiting for further diplomatic
developments.
Eyewitness Report from Italy
U. S. diplomacy in Italy in recent months has taken a serious setback.
This is due principally to what is considered by Italians I talked to in
Rome as American interference in their internal political affairs. They
refer to the statement of Ambassador Claire Booth Luce, who implied in her
Milan speech during the heat of the recent Italian political campaign that
unless the Italian people voted for Alcide DeGasperi, economic aid to Italy
would be reviewed. It?s the same old story of untrained American citizens
appointed to important foreign posts without the proper experience and
training in international affairs. We spend millions of dollars in training
Generals at West Point and Admirals at Annapolis to defend us in the event
of ware but we have no schools of equal stature to train our ambassadors,
who could go far in avoiding conditions that necessitate the use of arms.
Diplomacy should be the first line of defense for America and diplomats
should at least receive as thorough an education in diplomacy as our mili-
tary officers receive in military tactics. As I travel around the world I
have the privilege of visiting many of our embassies and enjoy the friend-
ship of a number of our ambassadors. We have no doubt a number of efficient
career diplomats at the head of some of our embassies. They are brilliant
and capable Americans. But we have entirely too many ambassadors whose
principle qualification has been that they contributed a substantial sum of
money to the Democrat or Republican political pot This practice is danger-
ous to the security of the United States.
A bright side to this question of ambassadors came up recently when
President Eisenhower and Secretary Dulles appointed the first career woman
as Ambassador of the United States in the history of this Republic. Mrs.
Frances Willis of.Redlands, California, our new Ambassador to Switzerland,
is the first State Department career woman to be elevated to an ambassador-
ship. This certainly is a step in the right direction.
Eyewitness Report from Iran
The situation. in Iran has been greatly improved by two things in recent
months ...the defeat of stubborn Mohammed Mossadegh and the renewed negotia-
tions between British Anglo-Iranian Oil Corporation and Shah Reza Pahlevi
and his sister,, Princess Ashraf, who is credited with being the real power
in Iran today. The Soviet Union for years has conspired to overthrow the
Government of Iran by supporting the Communist Tudeh Party. Russia covets
Iran for more important reasons than oil. The real reason is that Iran
offers to Russia the only available waterway to the open sea. When I was
in Istanbul I went to the entrance of the Black'Sea and saw the Turkish mines
and nets submerged in a blockade of the channel, so?no Russian ship ca"n"" pass
thrA' 3r&t PjeIeas i 99WG9~rte6xi.ARDP88e0Oi4 3R 3.2 4QQ 2 4
water route for Russia is through Iran.
 Approved For Release 1999/09/10 CIA-RDP83-00423R001200840002-4
If the present government of Shah Reza Pahlevi profits by the mistakes of
both Mossadegh and formerly his father, the senior Reza Pahlevi, whose bad
record notoriously imposed upon the Iranian people, Iran will be financially
able to rehabilitate itself and stay friends with the West. Britain has offered
Iran an increase of oil profits from 15% to 50% which now compares favorably
with the 50% royalties that American oil companies always paid for Near East
oil,
Eyewitness Report from India
The report from India and Pakistan is more optimistic today than in my
several previous trips in the last three years, Both Prime Minister Pandit
Nehru of India and Prime Minister Mohammed Ali of Pakistan told me, during my
visits in Karachi and New Delhi, that they agreed on the controversial subject
of Kashmir to permit the 4,000 000 Kashmirians to vote whether they want to
stay with India or go with Pakistan. Since 85% of the population of Kashmir
is Moslem, it looks very much like they will vote to go with Pakistan and
India will lose the most beautiful vacation land of its continent. If this
plebiscite is held in March, 1954, as planned, the tensions will be removed
from this explosive spot which had threatened to flare up into serious pro-
portions in the past five years,
Eyewitness Report from Formosa
It was my pleasure again recently to be invited to the modest home of
.Generalissimo and Madame Chiang Kai-shek up in Grass Mountain some six miles
out of Taipeh, It is always a refreshing visit for me to be with these sin-
cere, Christian dedicated leaders of Free China, Among many questions I
asked them was one inquiring for the reason that the Chinese people on the
mainland did not give them greater support during the Civil War against the
Communists. I was expecting them to blame American foreign policy and
certain questionable representatives whom our government had sent into China,
and who were more sympathetic with Communism than with the Kuomintang. But
the Chiangs made no reference to any American emissaries, They simply
implied that their greatest shortcoming during those critical days of 1948
and 1949 on the mainland was that they trusted too many relatives and too
many friends. My visits with them are always inspired by their infinite
faith in God and their dedication to the liberation of their soil.
I saw a greatly improved army under the able assistance of United States
General William Chase, as well as a greatly improved Navy, thanks to the
valuable contribution in 150 and 151 of Admiral Cooke,
Eyewitness Report from Korea
This was my 12th trip to Korea since '1950. I covered the last Chinese
offensive this July, the Armistice signing at Pan-mun-jom on July 27, and
fora brief period events following the truce. One can fill a book with
observations on Korea. I can say frankly to you, men of the Navy, that all
of your heroic efforts on the seas and our other military contributions by
air and by land would be utterly wasted if we resorted to any policy of
appeasement during this Armistice period, Our miscalculations in Korea
are known to most of you. For three years we seemed to have no will to
' Approved For Relea 1999/09/10 : CIA-RDP83-004M001200840002-4
 Approved For Rele sa 1999/09/10 : CIA-RDP83-004WO01200840002-4
bring a military victory. Our previous policy was bogged down in Washington
with uncertainty and reluctance to make decisions for fear of offending some
of our friends, principally Britain and France. It appeared to us in Korea
that United States foreign policy was trailing on the:apronstrings of Britain.
First,, we announced we were not going to defend Korea. As early as June 19
1950, our government considered Korea outside of our defense perimeter in the
Far East. Those were the instructions to the Navy Commanders in the Pacific
and to our Supreme Commander in Tokyo,, General Douglas MacArthur. On June 25,
when the Reds crossed the 38th parallel to invade the Korean Republic,
Washington changed its mind and ordered MacArthur and a few thousand green
troops into Pusan. The heroism of our armed forces was the only encouraging
aspect of the whole mess in Korea. I watched our Air Force on bombing
missions hold back their fire along the borders for fear they might commit an
international incident in violation of their instructions from the State
Department. The Yalu River sanctuary protecting the Communist MIGS is a dark
chapter in our Korean experience. In the process of containment we lost over
25,000 dead, 150,000 casualties, not to mention $21,,0009000,,000 that it cost
the American people to prosecute the war.
This is all behind us now and the only optimistic note of the present is
that our foreign policy appears to be headed toward a more realistic and
promising direction. Politically, I believe,, it is an exaggeration for the
Republicans to claim credit for the Armistice at Pan-mun-,dom. It seems to me
that the Armistice was engineered by the Reds because they had reasons to
believe it was to their advantage to enter negotiations. They simply accepted
our terms which had been offered to them since 1951 at Kaesonga
After covering the Armistice signing at Panmmun-jom July 27, I flew over
the Communist lines near the lj kilometer demilitarized zone that we established.
This was the same day of the signing ceremonies. Even before the ink was dry
on the Armistice agreement, I saw the Communist bulldozers rolling right close
to the demilitarized zone erecting new air strips in violation of their agree-
ment at Pan-mun-jom. They have built a total of 38 air strips, some of them
within 28 miles of the city of Seoul. This is additional evidence that the Reds
are not sincere in their peace overtures, nor that it is wise to trust the
signatures and the agreements of Communist atheists.
The Controversy over Syngman Rhee
Since returning to the United States I have heard considerable criticism
of the President of the Korean Republic, Dr. Syngman Rhee. As is the usual
custom back in the United States,, most of the opinions on the world situation
and world personalities seem to reflect opinions based on emotion and wishful
thinking and politics more than on genuine facts. The case of Dr. Rhee is no
exception. It seems that the greatest criticism directed-against him was due
at the time when he released the 27,000 prisoners who had announced their
refusal to return to Communism. I was talking to Dr. Rhee during an inspection
of his troops at the Front this past July and I asked him this and other
questions for an official reply. First, may I bring you up to date on the
facts pertaining to the so-called "volunteer prisoners" who were guaranteed
protection by us in the course of a propaganda campaign which we directed.
Beginning during the Spring of 1951 and continuing through 1953,, we
Approved For Release 1999/09/10 : C+A-RDP83-00423R001200840002-4
 pC'~~iop'egP~'~~ab?oe-r
e `b~or e r vo untari y, or by so doing we would extend them
every facility at our disposal, including good food, clothing, etc. and
promising them that they would never have to go back to Communism against
their will. Over 52,000 troops deserted the Communism armies and surrendered
to our side. While we called these troops volunteer prisoners, the
Communists called them-deserters and by International law are subject to
execution.
I asked Dr. Rhee why he released the 27,000 prisoners which he did in
apparent violation of his agreement with the United Nations not to interfere
with the decisions of the Supreme Commander, who in this case was General
Mark Clark. Dr. Rheeos reply to the effect was that it wasn't he who
violated any agreement with the United Nations - it was the United Nations
who violated their agreement with him and the Republic of Korea. This is
the gist of the story as I gathered it from high government sources in Korea
during my recent assignment. It seems that in 1951 the Korea Republic
secured assurances from the United Nations that in sacrificing a part of
its sovereignty in favor of the United Nations military prosecution of the
war, Korea would be consulted on any major policy decisions. It was specifical-
ly understood that the United Nations would never permit any Communist inter-
rogators to enter the Republic of Korea territory to examine or speak with any
volunteer prisoners without the permission of the Government of South Korea.
Dr. Rhee said to me that the United Nations violated this agreement with him
by voting to allow Communist Poland, Communist Czechoslovakia, Communist
Korea and China and unfriendly India to enter his prison camps to inter-
rogate these prisoners without the permission of South Korea. The mistake
we made, Korean officials told me, was not in releasing the 27,000 prisoners,
but in not releasing the whole 52,000.
Our present experience certainly vindicates the decision of the South
Korean Government to release the 27,000 prisoners. The Reds have come down
to the neutral zone and have gone beyond the agreed process of interviewing
and resort to inquisitions and intimidations. They secured the names from
dog tags of these prisoners and have been known to go back to the homes of
these former Korean and Chinese prisoners and intimidate their families to
force their return. Even Indian General Thimayya of the Neutral Commission
reported recently that the inhuman tactics of the Red inquisitors is beyond
the bounds of agreements at Pan-mun-jom, I watched their shennanigans in
holding our American prisoners for blackmail the same way they held those
four Navy flyers in Hungary. Y think we paid thirty thousand dollars apiece
in blackmail for those four flyers. So long as the United States continues
to pay this blackmail, so long are they going to put the squeeze on you at
every opportunity.
Somebody said to me, yesterday, when I was speaking in Kansas City, "Now
that the Reds have the H-bomb and we have reasonable information that they
might have it, we should make compromises. Mr. Morley, we can't get tough
today." Of course, just coming back from Korea where I was caught in that
last offensive, having covered many of the real problems of Korea, physical.,
mental, and civilian and otherwise, I can assure you that I know that this
r . Approved For KeLse 1999/09/10 : (IA-KDPt$J-00 3KUU12UUo4000Z-4
 Approved For Release 1999/09/10 : CIA-RDP83-00~423R001200840002-4
great country isn't ready to make sacrifices because the Russians may happen
to have the H-bomb. The H-bomb, ladies and gentlemen, doesn't change the
moral law of the United States, it doesn't change our courage and our
liberty. The H-bomb doesn't change, "God give me liberty or God give me
deaths" The H-bomb is a new weapon a very treacherous weapon and probably
should be considered very seriously. We can compromise where compromises
can be made honorably but the suggestion of compromising with principle
is not in the character or in the disposition of the American people and I
can count on the number of letters that I have been getting from the
American people that they do want their military organization absolutely
intact.
This idea of the shifting winds building up our defenses, year after
year, all of a sudden the Congress goes on'an economic binge and down go
our budgets. In the next six months, up go the budgets. Well, I know it
is, not the intention of Secretary Wilson to operate that way because it is
costl and it brings inflation and I know that those.of you who are
committed in our Naval organization know from practical, first-hand experi-
ence better than we know of the practicality of maintaining the standards
of our military organization. I say that to all of my audiences across the
country. I am a firm believer, as most of you I know are, in a military
defense`so long as we are being challenged from every quarter, by these
atheists and communists and, finally, we are not just fighting Communism.
I wish that I could tell you that after covering seventy-five and one-
hundred thousand miles around the world on this assignment, I could come
back, home and say to you that all you have to do is to whip these Reds in
Russia and everything will be under control. I wish it were that simple
because we can if we make up our minds and if we are going to be dedicated to
a military war, we can win that war. We have the know-how, we have the
technology and we have the brilliant military leadership, but that isn't the
big problem as we correspondents see it. If I were to ask you or a civilian
group, as I will, tonight, at the Club, "What do you aspire right now more
than anything else in the world?" Supposing you had your choice and the power
to bring it about. I would venture to say in the United States most people
who have everything else will say that we want peace above anything in the world
and the reason we say that, ladies and gentlemen, is because we have everything,
everything that materialism can provide in this civilization.
But, if you were to ask the same question as I have asked it in audi-
ences in Europe, in the Near East, in Asia, many, many times, "What do you
aspire most right now?" The answer is always the same, it isn't peace, it
isn't freedom, it is "food". Food is the number one aspiration of the
billion people on earth who are hungry. So you can see the differences of
opinion. Food is the problem.
So, after we defeat our Number One enemy, Communism, and we defeat these
other vacuums, vacuums like untrained diplomats, vacuums like complacency and
indifference, vacuums like political economies in the military organizations,
vacuums 'of greed and selfishness, vacuums of spiritual decline, vacuums of
letting somebody else do the job, of shirking our individual responsibilities,
I believe frankly that after we defeat Communism and defeat these vacuums
which millions of us unwittingly create, then and only then and perhaps, God
Wil ri will attain her greatest and final victory.
perea-orke 'lease 1999/09/10 : CIA-RDP83-00423R001200840002-4
9
 App or Rea sibl 9t 991?deCIk-R $3hQB42&ROftt2&DPt49QQ2.dent
has caused by sending food packages across the border into East Germany. What
effect did you find?
Answer: The question was asked, "Has the President's program of supply-
ing food to East Berlin been very practical in winning friends on our side?"
That question has been on the minds of many correspondents., so it is not
originallwith me. About a year or so ago, Mrs. Morley and I were the guests
of Admiral Radford at Pearl Harbor and we enjoyed several hours together. We
had dinner together and this question came up. He asked me exactly the same
question as you have asked because at that time I had just come from Germany
and, also, at that time our country was spending a lot of money on the Voice
of America and we had adopted the method of dropping these balloons with
literature and circulars. The* were very effective as far as they went but
were not too effective because the people behind the Iron Curtain are very
skeptical about any kind of propaganda.
I said to Admiral Radford, "Admiral,., I would like to have you read this
column." I had just finished a column on this subject and my suggestion at
that time was, "Why wouldn't it be just as effective to drop from airplanes
millions of these little bags; it would cost a very small amount by compari-
son. Take the budget away from the Voice of America and away from these
circulars and just fill these be.loons and all of these tea bags with coffee
or sugar. You know coffee and sugar sell for about $15 a pound behind the
Iron Curtain. I think that would be an effective plan and the President is
absolutely on the right track in doing more of that sort of thing. While I
was in Germany, the Communists but warning signs on the billboards that if
you crossed into the Western sector to pick up these packages you were going
to be shot. Well, there were thousands of Germans who crossed and got these
packages and nobody was shot.
Question: The suggestion that the people we are trying to reach in the
major target areas (as you so ably put it) are deep inside the Soviet Un16n` .
frontiers and by reaching them with anything of this character we would be
violating frontier regulations. Would you extend your comments further?
A ewer: There are about eighty million people living within the
perimeter of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania which is solidly Russia today.
Thus, we can forget that part. But, I am thinking principally of Poland,
Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovakia and Hungary andI believe that if we
could accomplish our purpose in those areas first, the other areas would
soon learn our way. The.people of Poland who live on the Soviet frontier
speak Russian. They intermingle., they frequently cross the frontiers in
the deep Soviet and Polish Communist sectors so it wouldn't be too long.,
without any effort on our part, and we could infiltrate into the Soviet area
without any legal, diplomatic violations. I like to do first things first.
Thus, I am convinced in my own mind that the Soviet people would revolt. I
am'not saying this just generally speaking, but because I have had first-
hand experience and I know that even some of the military, the Red Army
officers and men, are very bitter against Communists. I have seen evidence
of it in the days when our relations.with the Russians were more friendly
Approved For Releaa 1999/09/10 : CIA-RDP83-00421SO01200840002-4
 Approved For Releqp 1999/09/10 : CIA-RDP83-0042 8001200840002-4
and we mingled a little more. It is dangerous to fool around with the Soviet
frontier but there is a tremendous amount of work that we can do in the so-
called milder Communist areas where the people are just waiting for this
economic assistance.
uestion-. In the areas where our economic aid has been substantial,
did you find civilian resentment?
Answer: In the first place, I have heard rumors and statements from
people tra elling abroad, usually tourists who go through in six weeks or
'several months and come home and have all the answers. They talked with a
couple of taxi drivers, they had a bad deal with the handling of money,
tips or something, and they came back with a lot of unfavorable statements.
"T have seen polls taken by local'Communist parties where they appear to be
very unfavorable; I would say, frankly, that if I had any access to a
Gallup poll, or other accurate poll, I would be in a better position to
answer that,question. My answer is a biased answer, frankly because of my
friends, natives and nationals of the countries that I visit who are on
the side of America; I wouldnOt be'caught dead with them if they weren't.
Whey are very friendly to our government. They compliment us. They thank
t5 for our aid so the reports I bring back are reports that are very favor-
ably on the side of the United States. However, I have heard unfavorable
reports which I place in the same category as the patient getting well and
screanming at the doctor.
uestiona Would you comment on the attitude of people abroad on the
McCarthy investigations and the McCarthy personality and also whether or
not its solutions,, his answers, his investigations, have been favorably
interpreted abroad?
Answer. In the first place, McCarthy probably is better known in
Europe with the possible exception of President Eisenhower or Mrs. Roosevelt
and the reason for that is publicity. Senator McCarthy has all sorts of
ideas like Beria. He is on the front page of every newspaper in the
country today with this feria y fellow, but I don?t know how accurate it is.
However he has a very uncann faculty of getting himself on the front page.
I have known Joe McCarthy for a long time and, frankly, I believe that he is
sincere in his concern about Reds infiltrating into government but he is
also sincere about wanting Joe McCarthy to be the Vice-Presidential candim
date in 1556. He apparently wants to climb the political ladder as every
tither senator aspires to d?.
It was myprivilege during World War TI to have served in a branch of
Naval'Intelligence as a civilian counter-espionage agent. I know something
about spie's,'Russian, Communist, 'Nazi, Italian, and Japanese. I remember
Alger Hiss, when everyone else thought he was one swell fellow, your govern-
nehtknew all those negative facts, but evidently the Department of Justice
didnlt have the courage to do anything about it. It took a Senate investi?
gation to wake the people up. In spite of the fact that Joe McCarthy does
step on some peopleas toes, and he has been stepping on many of them in the
Approved for Release 1999/09/10 : CIA-RDP83-00423R001200840002-4
 Army recently, too; even`in of
1 pcovl ~ Fpolegs'e n' ns e~, ~6` dke i e people of America to~the
terrible danger of Communism,
Now, Europe doesn't like it. As you know, Europe didn't like General
Eisenhower, If you wanted some facts during the campaign last November,
.1 1
Europe was predominately on the side of the Democratic party because the
party ga
ve them the biggest hand-outs. They did not want President
Eisenhower to win. I can give you one good example why they didn't and
the: same thing works against anyone else in America who is critical
against' American foreign aid as Joe McCarthy has been. I remember one day
when I asked General Eisenhower, after my address to the Chamber of
Commerce in Paris in 1951, "General, how do you feel about this economic
aid? Are we getting full value for the dollar?" General Eisenhower said
that he was very disappointed with the kind of goods that some of our
Allies were buying with American financial aid. Specifically, I said,
''What do you mean, General?" He said, "I don't like the purchases by
Britain of scotch whiskey and cigarettes. Those are not as essential at
this particular time as other things that they could buy." Now I didn't
report it'but other reporters did print it, and it brought the wrath of
(#od upon the shoulders of Eisenhower. A few months after that began the
agf~ation and by 1952 he came back to America and no European was going
to trust the Republicans in continuing economic aid. So, not only Joe
McCarthy but even the President became unpopular because he began to
sharpen his economic principle.
uestion: Would you comment on socialism in England?
Answer: The people of Britain love it, especially when it comes to
socia'T zed medicine and other features of the former labor economy. You
can go 'up and down the street where they get false teeth for nothing and
get three or four sets. You can get corsets for nothing and medicine for
nothing. You, can buy about a hundred dollars worth of medicine for one
shilling if you get all the order filled at one time. It costs a shilling
eVery time you get an order, at the present time. You can see that some
of the people find it,to a great advantage. I have seen it for one
shilling in different parts of Britain but in some areas it costs a little
bit more, in some areas it costs nothing. It just depends upon the time
that you are there and under what conditions. Most areas in Britain do
not lace 'a cost on
the filling of prescriptions.
In addition, there are a lot of free so-called medical appliances
given to the British people and, by and large, it is my opinion that the
greatest section of the lower class people of Britain like to get their
medical treatment without any charge. It is a popular single item. As
far as the more intelligent, as far as the people who do some thinking,
they.realize this lends itself to other socialized practices.
Approved For Relee 1999/09/10 :CIA-RDP83-00428001200840002-4
 Approved For? Release 1999/09/10 : CIA-RDP83-00423 R001200840002-4
25X1A2g
Attachment for Seattle Process Sheet Report 1+160-
"Eyewitness 1953 World Report...Uncensored"
Approved For Release 1999/09/10 : CIA-RDP83-00423R001200840002-4