Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST):
CIA-RDP61-00017A000200060020-3
Body:
STANDARD FORM NO. 64
~- ~-a 3 ss C
A.pplpved For Releas 2001/08/ r - DP6 If4A -3
* a y, ? UNIT*ED STATES
GOVERNMENT
AR ec1ass/ a ease s r utions On I e
Decssificat R/Release Instructions on File
25X1A
SUBJECT: Army Psychological Warfare Officers Course; Interview with Commander
REFERENCE: Memo dtd 20 September 1954, subject: Army Psychological Warfare
Officers Course
2. participated in subject course from April 25X1A9a
to dune 1954. This class consisted of 16 students, 11 of whom were
army officers, 2 naval officers, one marine corps officer, and 2
USIA civilian employees. The average attendance of a class is
between 25 and 30 students. The course is given 3 or 4 times per
year.
1. In further pursuance to par. 8 of referenced memorandum,
I interviewed on 14 October at present on
duty with this Agency, assigne -o. (ext. 4 3., 2036 L Bldg.).
3. There was no entrance examination. Only about half of
the officers participating had definite PIJ assignments. The Navy
has no PW training of its own because it has such a small PW staff
setup. In view of this fact Navy is allowed a certain quota of
students in each army course, which quota, however, is not always
fully used. own attendance had been arranged for
through the Military Personnel Section of the Agency while he was
awaiting completion of his TOP SECRET clearance for work here.
4. The course has a resident instructing staff of approximately
20, including both enlisted men and officers. Most staff members
are college graduates, quite a few PHD's, primarily in psychology and
social sciences. Approximately 80 percent of the lectures are given
by officers. The enlisted men are primarily assigned to research
tasks, to the preparation of lectures and for practical demonstrations.
was very favorably impressed by the high standards, the
intellectual level and the hard work of the staff.
The time .othe course was approximately divided as follows:
i";O OiiANiri~
^ DECLASSIFIED
Class. CliANC:'BD TO:
hlen'09
DDA Auth: D
Apr 77
DA
~ ~
Date;
75 percent lectures
10 percent seminars
15 percent practical demonstrations
CON aNDA,0
pwv?VAORelise 2001/08/27 :CIA, V 0060020-3
DATE: 19 October 1954
Approved For Release 2001/0~ ~fM i VAL-060020-3
The main subjects of the lectures were listed in referenced memorandum.
The seminars were partly devoted to further discussion of the topics
treated in the lectures and partly to special problems. In one case,
for instance, the class had to simulate a UN meeting with every student
playing the role of the delegate of a certain foreign country and
having to defend the policies and interests of that country. Practical
demonstrations included leaflet drops from airplanes, use of loud
speakers on tanks, surrender propaganda at a road block, firing of
leaflet shells by artillery, etc.
6. Every week a written examination of one hour was given: this
included both the checking of correct answers to specific questions and
the writing of short essays on one of the subjects taught during that
week. There was also a l hour oral critique every week. Once during
the course every student had to prepare a paper of approximately 20
pages: he could choose the topic from a list of approximately 50
different topics or he could request permission to write on a topic of
his own choice. For the preparation of these papers as well as supple-
ment the lectures, students were given considerable reading time in the
well-equipped, special reference library of the course, including both
overt and classified reading material. Students could also take books
out of the library and read in the barracks after library hours.
7. The class was divided in groups of 4 students each for such
purposes as writing leaflets and radio scripts, solving tactical PW
problems, etc. There was also competition between these groups as to
the best solution for a given assignment.
8. offered the following comments on the course:
In his opinion it is too strictly adapted to specific
army needs so that he doubts the value of this training even
for the Navy (whose PW requirements obviously are more similar
to that of the Army than the requirements of the Agency). He
also criticized that too much emphasis was put on past experi-
ences and no solutions were offered to the tactical problems
which the Army must expect to face in the next war, for instance,
tactical PW in atomic warfare. does not believe
that the course offers sufficient general knowledge on PST and
related matters to justify regular attendance by CIA personnel.
However, in view of the fact that he has been with us only a
few months and has not had any operational experience, he
suggested that a final decision as to the possible value of
subject course for our training purposes should be made after
a senior, experienced PP officer has gone through the course.
In any case, he believes that the course might be useful for
those of our officers who will have to work in the field in
close cooperation with the Army. He mentioned, incidentally,
that he is convinced that our training effort at is
in every respect far superior to anything Fort Bragg can offer,
Approved For Release 2001/08/9 CIA-RDP6 NJr 0 000 0-3
E-1 AL
Approved For Release 2001/08/2
9. Conclusions and Recommendations- in view of the above, I
can only suggest that the question as to whether or not to send one or
two qualified PP officers to subject course for an additional "test,"
be
ft~ submitted to C/PP for his decision and appropriate action. 25X1A9a
struck me as a competent and unbiased witness and attendance of
subject course appears, therefore, not to offer any over-all solution
to our training problems in the PW field--except for personnel assigned
to tactical PP missions in areas where a military or paramilitary
situation is to be expected.
cc: C/STD
C/PRS
Approved For Release 2001/081
60020-3
25X1A
L Approved For Release 2001/08/27 : CIA-RDP61-00017AO00200060020-3
Approved For Release 2001/08/27 : CIA-RDP61-00017AO00200060020-3