Taking Back Our Stolen History
Air Reserve Training Manual Released: Claims Investigation Revealed the ‘Revised Standard Version of the Holy Bible’, Promulgated by the National Council of Churches, was a Communist Tainted Endeavor
Air Reserve Training Manual Released: Claims Investigation Revealed the ‘Revised Standard Version of the Holy Bible’, Promulgated by the National Council of Churches, was a Communist Tainted Endeavor

Air Reserve Training Manual Released: Claims Investigation Revealed the ‘Revised Standard Version of the Holy Bible’, Promulgated by the National Council of Churches, was a Communist Tainted Endeavor

The 1960 report from the Committee on Un-American Activities clearly shows that the US “Main Line” churches had in fact been penetrated by Communists whose goal was not to further the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but rather to do the work of the Adversary, under the able direction of the COMINTERN. For those who follow the rapid decline of those same Main Line churches, none of this will seem a surprise.  But it may be gratifying to learn of the early genesis of the distress suffered today. It will interest you to note that no witness — not a single one — disputes that the NCC, by implication their RSV, and many churches had in fact been co-opted.  Rather, they simply suggest the Air Force is merely the wrong place to address the issue.

The beginning of true liberty is Jesus Christ. And therefore the first and last target of all subversion is biblical faith. Hence it is that the Church has been the first target of infiltration and subversion; and is the most subverted institution in the United States today. — Dr. R. J. Rushdoony









FEBRUARY 25, 1960

Printed for the use of the Committee on Un-American Activities



FRANCIS E. WALTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman







PageStatement of Dudley C. Sharp, Secretary of the Air Force 1285




The legislation under which the House Committee on Un-American Activities operates is Public Law 601, 79th Congress [1946], chapter 753, 2d session, which provides:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, * *



* * * * * * 17. Committee on Un-American Activities, to consist of nine Members.



* * * * * * (1) Committee on Un-American Activities.(A) Un-American activities.

(2) The Committee on Un-American Activities, as a whole or by subcommit­tee, is authorized to make from time to time investigations of (i) the extent, character, and objects of un-American propaganda activities in the United States,

the diffusion within the United States of subversive and un-American propa­ganda that is instigated from foreign countries or of a domestic origin and attacks the principle of the form of government as guaranteed by our Constitution, and

all other questions in relation thereto that would aid Congress in any necessary remedial legislation.

The Committee on Un-American Activities shall report to the House (or to the Clerk of the House if the House is not in session) the results of any such investi­gation, together with such recommendations as it deems advisable.

For the purpose of any such investigation, the Committee on Un-American Activities, or any subcommittee thereof, is authorized to sit and act at such times and places within the United States, whether or not the House is sitting, has recessed, or has adjourned, to hold such hearings, to require the attendance of such witnesses and the production of such books, papers, and documents, and to take such testimony, as it deems necessary. Subpenas may be issued under the signature of the chairman of the committee or any subcommittee, or by any member designated by any such chairman, and may be served by any person designated by any such chairman or member.

* * * * * *


SEC. 136. To assist the Congress in appraising the administration of the laws and in developing such amendments or related legislation as it may deem neces­sary, each standing committee of the Senate and the House of Representatives shall exercise continuous watchfulness of the execution by the administrative agencies concerned of any laws, the subject matter of which is within the jurisdic­tion of such committee; and, for that purpose, shall study all pertinent reports and data submitted to the Congress by the agencies in the executive branch of the Government.

House Resolution 7, January 7, 1959


I. There shall be elected by the House, at the commencement of each Con­gress,

* * *(q) Committee on Un-American Activities, to consist of nine Members.

* * * * *


* * * * * * 18. Committee on Un-American Activities.

Un-American activities.

The Committee on Un-American Activities, as a whole or by subcommittee, is authorized to make from time to time investigations of (1) the extent, char­acter, and objects of un-American propaganda activities in the United States, (2) the diffusion within the United States of subversive and un-American prop­aganda that is instigated from foreign countries or of a domestic origin and attacks the principle of the form of government as guaranteed by our Constitu­tion, and (3) all other questions in relation thereto that would aid Congress in any necessary remedial legislation.

The Committee on Un-American Activities shall report to the House (or to the Clerk of the House if the House is not in session) the results of any such investi­gation, together with such recommendations as it deems advisable.

For the purpose of any such investigation, the Committee on Un-American Activities, or any subcommittee thereof, is authorized to sit and act at such times and places within the United States, whether or not the House is sitting, has recessed, or has adjourned, to hold such hearings, to require the attendance of such witnesses and the production of such books, papers, and documents, and to take such testimony, as it deems necessary. Subpenas may be issued under the signature of the chairman of the committee or any subcommittee, or by any member designated by any such chairman, and may be served by any person designated by any such chairman or member.

* * * * * * 

26. To assist the House in appraising the administration of the laws and In developing such amendments or related legislation as it may deem necessary, each standing committee of the House shall exercise continuous watchfulness of the execution by the administrative agencies concerned of any laws, the subject matter of which is within the jurisdiction of such committee; and, for that purpose, shall study all pertinent reports and data submitted to the House by the agencies in the executive branch of the Government.





The Committee on Un-American Activities met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 228, Old House Office Building, Hon. Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania (chairman), presiding.

Committee members present: Representatives Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania; Morgan M. Moulder, of Missouri; Clyde Doyle, of California; Edwin E. Willis, of Louisiana ; William M. Tuck, of Virginia; Donald L. Jackson, of California; Gordon H. Scherer, of Ohio; and August E. Johansen, of Michigan. (Appearances as noted.)

Staff members present: Richard Arens, staff director; Frank S. Tavenner, Jr., counsel; Donald T. Appell and Raymond T. Collins, investigators.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order, please. (Members present at the convening of the hearing : Representatives Walter, Moulder, Doyle, and Scherer.)

The CHAIRMAN. Some few weeks ago, this committee began hear­ings on the subject of Communist activities and propaganda among youth groups. In opening those hearings I stated :

I know that this committee’s investigation in this area will probably pre­cipitate a barrage from the Communist press and from Communist sympathizers characterizing our work as an investigation of youth. The Communists know, as well as we do, that the overwhelming majority of the young people of this Nation are of unquestioned patriotism and dedication to all that is good and noble in our society. But by equating an investigation of Communist activities among youth with an investigation of youth itself, the Communists and their sympathizers hope to becloud the issues. This, of course, is an old trick which the Communists repeatedly use. When this committee investigates Communist activities in defense plants, the smoke screen that the Communists use is that we are investigating organized labor. When we investigate Communist activi­ties in an educational institution, it is protested by the Communists that we are investigating education. I am sure that the overwhelming majority of the American people readily see through this fraud, and it shall not dissuade us from our task.

Although the only witnesses who were subpenaed for those hearings on Communist activities and propaganda among youth groups were hard-core members of the Communist Party who had been identified as such under oath, the Communist and pro-Communist press of this

1 Released by the committee and ordered to be printed. 1285


country followed the course which I predicted on the day on which the hearings were opened.

Typical of the reaction which I anticipated was a statement of one columnist that the Committee on Un-American Activities was now engaged in intimidating children.

An editorial in the Washington Post proclaimed that the Com­mittee on Un-American Activities:

• * * aims to stigmatize as subversive a healthy curiosity and a youthful hope that peace can be promoted by letting young people of the world rub elbows and minds.

With reference to the hard-core identified Communists who were subpenaed before this committee, the Washington Post editorial stated :

The House Committee on Un-American Activities has now used its subpena power to hale before it five young men and women who had the temerity to at­tend one or another of the youth festivals held at Moscow, Warsaw and Vienna.

Based on extensive experience as chairman of this committee, I now predict that the instant hearings will be publicized as an in­vestigation by the Committee on Un-American Activities of religion ; that we on this committee are concerned about religious beliefs or theology ; or that certain ministers of the gospel must be subversive because they advocate tenets with which the committee does not con­cur.

Again I say, as I said when we were investigating Communist activities and propaganda among youth groups, that this diversion­ary tactic will not dissuade us from our task. We thoroughly ex­pect attack by Communists, pro-Communists, dupes, and misguided liberals who would use the facade of religion to mask Communist activities. We on this committee are as proud of our enemies as we are of our friends.

In the military stalemate between the forces of freedom and in­ternational communism, the chief arena of conflict has now shifted from the military to the nonmilitary. The enemy’s threat, however, becomes even more dangerous because it is more difficult to detect and engage in combat. His arsenal includes weapons of internal subversion, espionage, sabotage, propaganda, and economic and polit­ical warfare. His objective remains the same—destruction of all free societies, conquest of the world, and enslavement of mankind. The battlefields are every institution and organization of society, in­cluding the home, the church, the school, and every agency of our Government.

During the past summer a 2-week National Strategy Seminar for 200 carefully selected reserve officers from all over the Nation was held at the National War College in Washington with the en- dorsement of the Department of Defense and with the assistance of the Reserve Officers Association, the Foreign Policy Research Institute of the University of Pennsylvania, and the Institute for American Strategy.

The officers who attended this seminar did not study military science. They did not listen to lectures on military strategy, tactics, weapons development, and other subjects usually associated with the Armed Forces. Rather, the major theme of this seminar, at which




a score of the country’s top authorities on communism lectured, was “fourth dimensional warfare” or, as it is sometimes called, “political warfare”—combat aimed at destroying an enemy by nonmilitary means. This is a combat science which has been developed by the Communists to its highest degree in the history of civilization.

An implication of this seminar—and a point previously made by many experts—is that this country could be conquered by Com­munists without a shot being fired ; that the military know-how and capabilities of our Armed Forces, our tremendous array of weapons, and the huge sums spent to develop them might never be used in a final defense effort to prevent the enslavement of the American people.

In this struggle between freedom and the forces of slavery, the Con­gress of the United States has charged the Committee on Un-Ameri­can Activities with the responsibility for maintaining continuing sur­veillance over the agitational and propaganda activities within this Nation, of the international Communist conspiracy. It has also charged it with continually reviewing the administration and opera­tion of our security laws for the purpose of recommending such revi­sions as are necessary to cope with the everchanging Communist threat.

Recently the Secretary of the Air Force, Dudley C. Sharp, was quoted in the press as “categorically repudiating” the Air Reserve Center Training Manual as representing Air Force views. Much of this manual deals with problems of Communist infiltration and sub­version. Indeed, in the sections dealing with this subject, there ap­pear numerous quotations derived from hearings conducted by the Committee on Un-American Activities, in which are presented au­thoritative statements by experts on each of several facets of the subject.

Since it appears that the “categorical repudiation” of the Air Re­serve Center Training Manual by the Secretary of the Air Force stemmed largely because of statements in the manual respecting “in­filtration of fellow-travelers into churches”—see manual, page 15-14—all God-fearing, freedom-loving people would do well to pause and reflect on the irresolute opposition of atheistic communism to religion.

Here are the words of J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation:

Communism is secularism on the march. It is the mortal foe of all the world’s religions which acknowledge the existence of God. Either the faith of our fathers will triumph or communism will engulf us. In this land of ours the two cannot live side by side.

Nowhere among the leaders of the Communist Party in the United States, Russia, Red China or in any other part of the world will you find one who loves and believes in God. God is truth. Communists hate truth and, therefore, they hate the church.

One of the leading slogans of the Communist Revolution in Russia in 1917 was : “Religion is the opium of the people.”

This was first uttered by Karl Marx, the founder of communism, in 1843. Lenin, now resurrected by the Kremlin as the Communist idol and guide of the present and future, restated it in 1905. * * * Nikita Khrushchev, the present head of the Russian Communist Party, publicly proclaimed that Communists have not changed their opinion on religion and said :

“We remain the atheists that we have always been ; we are doing all we can to liberate those people who are still under the spell of this religious opiate.”



Sworn testimony from religious leaders who have escaped from Communist regimes amply demonstrates the intensity of the warfare which communism is waging against the churches.

I am inserting, as an appendix to my remarks, excerpts -from typical testimony on this issue.

What of Communist infiltration in church groups in the United States?

Incidental to investigations conducted by the Committee on Un-American Activities in our pursuit of Communists, at least a dozen persons who have been identified as members of the Communist Party have also professed to be ministers of the gospel. In addition, several undercover operatives of the FBI who have served in the Communist Party have testified under oath respecting the directives under which they and other members of the Communist Party operated with re­spect to penetration of church groups.

I am likewise inserting in the appendix to my remarks excerpts from sworn testimony on this subject.

How successful have Communists been in their attempts to pene­trate church groups?

Although this question is not subject to precise qualitative or quan­titative analysis, it is a fact, however, supported by the record, that the Communists have duped large numbers of the clergy, as well as lay leaders of the churches, into supporting Communist fronts and causes which masquerade behind deceitful facades of humanitarianism. This is not to say that these persons are necessarily consciously supporting Communist enterprises, but the net result is, for all practical purposes, the same.

Some 2 or 3 years ago the Committee on Un-American Activities’ held consultations with three prominent clergymen of the Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant faiths, respectively, on the subject “The Ideological Fallacies of Communism.” These clergymen. Rabbi S. Andhil Fineberg, Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, and Dr. Daniel A. Poling, clearly exposed the fallacies of this devilish force. In the course of the consultation Dr. Fineberg was asked this question :

Have the religious forces of the world, in your judgment, been as vigorous in opposition to the spread of communism as they might have been?

He replied :

Too few religious leaders have accepted the responsibility of refuting Communist propaganda. Like most Americans, clergymen have been against com­munism without studying it and without effort to expose its fallacies.

In my judgment, much good can come from an objective inquiry into the reasons why the Air Reserve Center Training Manual, which in part dealt with this very problem, was repudiated by the Secretary of the Air Force. Without apology, therefore, and with firm determi­nation that we will pursue this subject matter honestly, fairly, and sincerely, with the end in view of developing the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, we are opening our inquiry today by receiving the testimony of the Secretary of the Air Force, Dudley C. Sharp.


(The appendix referred to follows:)





Father Theodoric Joseph Zubek, a Franciscan priest who escaped from Slovakia, testified before the Committee on Un-American Activities in December 1959 as follows :

‘. . . Male religious orders and congregations were suppressed in April 1950. There were over 700 male religious priests and brothers living in 137 monasteries in Slovakia. * * * and were subjected to Communist-sponsored reeducation. If they complied with this brain­washing and took the oath of loyalty, they were sent to parishes and churches as diocesan priests. If they remained unyielding, they were sent to forced labor camps, and later in 1957, released to manual work. Clerics and religious brothers, if they did not want to leave the reli­gious life, went also through the forced labor camps, and eventually to manual work on their own. A similar fate met the female religious congregations. There were 3,548 religious sisters in Slovakia, living in 210 convents. The convents were suppressed in August 1950, and the sisters were forced to leave the religious life. If they refused, they were sent to work without any salary in forced labor camps, collective farms, or various state plants.

“. . . The Communist control can be said to be twofold : public control and secret control of activities of the church. By public con­trol, I mean the antichurch laws of 1949.

“Besides, they have secret control of the church. Spies attend every ceremony. They trail priests and bishops wherever they go.”


• • • • •


Concerning Communist persecution of church groups in Red China, Rev. Peter Chu Pong, general secretary of the Hong Kong Inter­national Christian Leadership, testified before the Committee on Un-American Activities in March 1959, as follows:“. .

. They (the Communists) formed an indoctrination class in the assembly hall of our church. For 2 weeks they worked on the members of my church, brainwashing them into accusing me of being an imperialist agent and a running dog of the missionaries .. .

“From morning to night they taught my church members all about communism. They indoctrinated our people along three major points : 1. They entirely denied there is a living God which exists in this universe. They told the people the whole universe was created through evolution. 2. They denied Lord Jesus and His salvation. They told the people that Jesus Christ was just a common carpenter, that the people had crucified him because he wanted to lead the people in counterrevolution work. 3. They told the people that Christianity is a religious instrument of the foreign imperialists to poison our Chinese people and sell them into slavery.

“. . . They held an accusation meeting to accuse me, my wife, and the elders and deacons in our church of being imperialists. They


tied our hands with long lon rope and forced us to kneel on the platform in our church assembly hall with signs around our necks which said `Guilty Crime.’ They slapped our faces, kicked our bodies, and poured cold water on our heads. They made my children stand and watch. If they cried, the Communists beat them. They wanted me to con­fess that I was an imperialist agent and reveal the amounts of money I was supposed to have received from the missionaries. They wanted me to tell what kind of guns and radios the missionaries had given to me. They accused me of helping twelve missionaries escape from Nanking before the Communists came. They wanted me to reject Christ, give up my church, and admit that the only God was Mao Tse-tung, head of the Communist government.

“. . . If I had confessed they would have killed me immediately. They were going to put me into prison anyway. * * *”

* * * * * * *

Under date of October 20, 1959, Moiselle Clinger, former under­cover agent for the FBI who served in the Communist Party, testi­fied as follows :

“Question : What was the practice of the Communist Party during the period of your membership with regard to assigning people to work in mass organizations?

“Mrs. Clinger : Almost everyone was assigned to some type of a mass organization. Now, there may have been something that they were interested in. I mean, they were all in some group that they may have belonged to, but if you didn’t belong, you were told where or what to join. I remember the churches. There was one period where they felt it was quite necessary that different people join different churches, and for

“Question : . . Now, if you will recall other assignments, you spoke of assignments in church work. Do you know of anyone who re­ceived such an assignment who was known to you personally to be a member of the Communist Party ?

“Mrs. Clinger: Yes. The same 0. E. Burrell, I know, did quite a bit. I know that he belonged to the church in Santa Monica, and to me this was kind of an odd thing, and to many of the old-timers in the Communist Party it was kind of earth shaking to have to go into a church. * * * I noticed it was mostly the younger—I wouldn’t say younger, I mean the newer—members that they were able to do this with. I noticed it was not the older members, long-standing members who were too interested in taking on this task of going into the churches to work.

“I know my husband was asked to join a church, and I frowned On this, so that he was not pushed to go ahead with this.”

* * * * * * *

A few months ago Mrs. Dorothy Healey, a member of the National Committee of the Communist Party, reported in a convention speech respecting the activities of the Communists of southern California, in part, as follows :

“* * * Communists * * * are working in community organiza­tions, fraternal organizations or churches * * *




“A further expression of the way to develop and consolidate the antimonopoly alliance, is through our participation in activating the program of the people’s organizations to which we belong.”


* * * * * *


Marion Miller, former undercover agent for the FBI, testified be­fore the Committee on Tin-American Activities on October 21, 1959, as follows :

“Mrs. Miller: * * * these people * * * carry out this Communist propaganda and the work of the party no matter where they are be- cause propaganda is their duty, to promote communism wherever they are,

whatever time it might be. They live and breathe as Communists, in whatever organization they go into. I can’t emphasize this too strongly, whether in a trade union or in a fraternal organization, or in. a religious group, in a church, wherever it may be, the duty of a Com- munist is to carry out the Communist program.’


* * * * * *


Miss Carol Bayne, San Diego native and resident, appeared before the Committee on Un-American Activities in public session on April 21, 1954. She became a Communist sympathizer late in 1948, and joined the Communist Party early in 1949. She testified that she prob­ably was dropped from party rolls sometime in 1951 at her request, and that she made an effort to rejoin the party in February 1954. She testified as follows :

“Question : Were you given instructions at any time by the Com­munist Party as to the attitude that should be taken by Communists toward religion or toward religious groups ?

“Miss Bayne : Toward religious groups. I can answer that. I was instructed not too long ago, in the hopes of assisting the FBI, when I tried to get back into the party, I was instructed that I would have to oin a church youth group, or a church, and become active in its work. “Question : You were told if you came back

“Miss Bayne: In order to get back into the party I would have to get into a church group and work within it and try to influence it.”


* * * * * *


Rev. Joseph S. Nowak appeared before the Committee on Un-American Activities in public session on March 25, 1954. He was born in Lwow, Poland, on October 17, 1903, and was brought to the United States by his parents in June 1906.

In the course of his testimony, Rev. Nowak admitted that in 1946 he formally joined the Communist Party. In discussing his associations with the Communist Party and its members, he testified that from 1934, upon his graduation from the Union Theological Seminary, until 1942, he was in charge of a small mission, St. Paul’s Presbyterian Church, in Baltimore, Maryland. He testified that, while not a mem­ber of the Communist Party, he held an office in a Communist-front organization, the American League Against War and Fascism, know­ing that its leaders were officials in the Communist Party:

“Question : Were you a member of the Communist Party while you were on your assignment in Baltimore ?

“Mr. Nowak: No, sir ; I was not.


“Question: Although you were not a member of the Communist Party while you were in Baltimore, did you collaborate with function­aries of the Communist Party while you were there

“Mr. Nowak : I worked together

“Question : And worked with the Communist Party ?

“Mr. Nowak : I worked together with them; yes.

“Question : Knowingly ?

“Mr. Nowak : As an official of the American League [Against War and Fascism] ; yes, and also knowingly. I knew that they were officials in the party.”


* * * * * *


Herbert A. Philbrick was a member of the Communist Party as an undercover agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Follow­ing are excerpts from his testimony before the Committee on Un-American Activities on July 23, 1951:

“Question : You have testified that you were active in various youth organizations in your church work. Did you continue to be active in your church work after joining the Young Communist League?

“Mr. Philbrick : Yes, I did. First of all, of course, I wanted to continue because I wanted to maintain my contacts with some healthy minded individuals; but beyond that, and to my good fortune, I was instructed by the party to continue my contacts and to continue my affiliations in all my normal groups.

“These instructions were also given to other members in my cell . . . “Question : Who gave you those instructions ?

“Mr. Philbrick : . . . I recall that in a discussion at the apart­ment of Dave Bennett we were given those instructions. I was also given those same instructions by Fanny Hartman and by Alice Gordon.

“Question: Was Dave Bennett known to you to be a member of the Communist Party ?

“Mr. Philbrick: He was known to me long before I actually be­came a formal member myself .. .

“Question : From the instructions which you received from the Communist Party, did it appear, or were you led to believe, that in the field of religious activity the. Communist Party was incompatible with any religious belief?

“Mr. Philbrick : Absolutely. We were taught that the socialistic theories of Marx had nothing to do with the idealistic superstitions of religious organizations.”


• •


Earl Reno, former high-ranking official of the Communist Party, testified before the Committee on Un-American Activities on March 25, 1954, as follows :

“Question : . . . In the performance of the work of the Communist Party through the American League Against War and Fascism, and through the Ethiopian Defense Committee, did you utilize at any time the services of any ministers or any members of the ministry?

“Mr. Reno: Yes. We had two ministers who were particularly active in the American League Against War and Fascism and the Ethiopian Defense Committee. * * * Rev. Joseph Nowak and Rev. Jack Hutchison. * * *




* * * These two young ministers came there, said they had recently come from the Union Theological Seminary in New York, that they had been students of Harry Ward and intimated that they had some previous contact with the Communist Party and wanted to know in what way they could work. * * *

” * * * they were assigned to churches in Baltimore; that they had previously done some work in conjunction with the Communist Party, I believe, in New York and wanted to know in what way they could do cooperative work while in the period they were in Baltimore. * * *

“Then, in the meantime, I had had discussions with Leonard Pat­terson about the possibility of their working in the Ethiopian Defense Committee, and at the second meeting with them I suggested they work both with the American League Against War and Fascism and the Ethiopean Defense Committee, and they did. They became mem­bers of these two organizations and participated. * * *

“Question: Did they advise you at any time that they were not mem­bers of the Communist Party ?

“Mr. Reno : No. There were times when they asked the advisability of joining the Communist Party, which I advised them against, and at one point Dr. Albert Blumberg came and said one minister had asked the probability of leaving the church, joining the Communist Party. I said, ‘This is ridiculous.’ * * * Dr. Albert Blumberg came to me to discuss the possibility of Reverend Hutchison joining the Communist Party, and at that time I said I didn’t think it was wise and I thought it was rather ridiculous, and as long as I was in Balti- more I would not have accepted membership application from either of them.

“Question : Why?

“Mr. Reno : I didn’t feel a minister belonged in the Communist Party. * * * If a minister were identified as a member of the Com­munist Party, his use in the Communist Party at that time would have been nil. In my own words, an unemployed minister of the Communist Party has no value.

“Second, I felt ideologically the training for the ministry inevitably comes in conflict with the ideological training of the Communist, that if they did join they would inevitably come in conflict with it and, therefore, they would be of much more use not being members of the Communist Party than if they were members.

“Question : You mean use to the Communist Party ?

“Mr. Reno : That’s right.

“Question : I gather in your position as a functionary of the Com­munist Party it was your feeling you could put ministers to a much better use if they were not members of the party than if they became members of the Communist Party?

“Mr. Reno : That is correct.”


• • • •


Mrs. Anita Bell Schneider, a native of California, appeared before the House Committee on Un-American Activities in public hearings in June and July of 1955. She had served 17 months as a control-tower operator in the WAVES during 1914 and 1945; attended San Diego State Teachers College in the following few years, receiving a bachelor’s degree in sociology and economics • worked for Deputy Sheriff Robert Newsom from February 1951 to August 1951, when she


became an undercover operative for the FBI. At their request she joined the Communist Party in the summer of 1951. Most of her Communist Party work was done in San Diego, some in Los Angeles and Sacramento and a little in Chicago. Her major party assign­ment was to become chairman of the San Diego Peace Forum. Other assignments included membership on the county central committee of the Independent Progressive Party ; service as secretary of the State Independent Progressive Party Convention in Chicago in 1952; and as secretary of the women’s division of the Independent Progressive Party.

In her testimony on June 27, 1955, Mrs. Schneider stated that the Communists, recognizing the universal desire for peace, felt that at­taching the word “peace” to their efforts would aid in getting the use of churches to meet in, “we could involve other people and active


  • church people. . .” She further testified that she had been given lit


erature to take to the ministers of the two churches she attended in an effort to make them more active in the peace movement.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, we appreciate your coming here this morning.


Mr. ARENS. Mr. Secretary, would you kindly give us, please, sir, just a word of your own personal background, with particular refer­ence to your career in the military ?

Secretary SHARP. Yes, sir, I would be glad to do that..

I was in the NAVY during the war, during World War II, a large part of the time at sea, as an executive officer and commanding officer of antisubmarine warfare vessels.

Since that time my only connection with the services has been with the Air Force as Assistant Secretary for Materiel, beginning in Octo­ber, 1955; as Under Secretary of the Air Force, beginning in August, 1959; and Secretary, as of December of 1959.

Mr. ARENS. If you could give us just a capsule-outline of your basic responsibilities and duties, please, sir.

Secretary SHARP. As Secretary of the Air Force do you mean ? Mr. ARENS. Yes, sir.

Secretary SHARP. Well, my responsibilities are to report to the Sec­retary of Defense on the activities of the Air Force and generally supervise the activities of the Air Force as they are directed by the Secretary of Defense.

Mr. ARENS. Now, Mr. Secretary, I have in my hand—and I see you have before you—a copy of Air Reserve Center Training Manual, Student Text, which has this identification R. 45-0050 Vol. 7,”



which is also entitled “Reserve Non-Commissioned Officer Course, Stu­dent Text, Continental Air Command.”

May we start our interrogation, if you please, sir, by asking you when your attention was first directed to this manual, and by whom?

Secretary SHARP. Well, it was on Tuesday evening. I don’t re­member the date.

General HOPWOOD. 16th of February, Tuesday morning.

Secretary SHARP. The 16th of February; on Tuesday morning of the 16th of February it was brought to my attention by presentation of a copy of a letter from Mr. Wine—I think the letter was signed by—to the Secretary of Defense, with a copy sent to the Secretary of the Air Force. I received this copy on Tuesday morning.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you remember Mr. Wine’s first name?

Colonel BAER. James.

Secretary SHARP. James.

The CHAIRMAN. According to this morning’s newspaper, Mr. Wine is quoted as saying that he thinks subversives prepared the manual.

Mr. ARENS. Mr. Secretary, prior to that time were you familiar with the contents of the manual concerning which we are directing your attention?

Secretary SHARP. No, I was not.

Mr. ARENS. Would you kindly tell us

Mr. SCHERER. Pardon just a minute. Mr. Chairman, do we have a copy of the letter that was received by the Secretary of Defense? Secretary SHARP. I don’t believe I have that here.

Does anybody have a copy of this letter that was received? Mr. SCHERER. Can you get us a copy of it for the record ?

Secretary SHARP. We can get a copy for the record.

Mr. SCHERER. Mr. Chairman, I move that a copy of the letter be made a part of the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. It is understood a copy of the letter will be submitted to the committee and will be made a part of the record. (The letter referred to follows 🙂


475 Riverside Drive, New York 27, N.Y., RIverside 9-2200
Rev. Edwin T. Dahlberg, President Rev. Roy G. Ross, General Secretary

The Honorable THOMAS S. GATES, Jr. FEBRUARY 11, 1960. Secretary of Defense

Department of Defense

The Pentagon,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. SECRETARY : Enclosed is a copy of Air Reserve Center Training Manual, Student Text, NR. 45-0050, Increment 5, Volume 7 prepared, printed and distributed as indicated in the document itself.

We respectfully invite your attention to pages 15-13 to 15-20 of the document. Let me express surprise and indeed grave concern at these portions of the text. The National Council of Churches vigorously protests that a service document prepared by an agency under the auspices of the United States Government con­tains edited material regarding the Christian churches in America.

The appearance of this material, in the circumstances, is a patent contraven­tion of the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States. To imply some relationship between the Revised Standard Version of the Holy Bible and Communism is insidious and absurd.


To aver by innuendo that the National Council of Churches is associated or in any way influenced by the Communist party is an example of irresponsibility at its worst. The adoption in the text as official Air Force statements of the opin­ion of prejudiced persons identified only on page four of the appendix ; to wit, Circuit Riders Inc. pamphlet, “Apostate Clergymen Battle for God-Hating Com­munist China ;” “The National Council of Churches Indicts Itself on 50 Counts of Treason to God and Country” is an incredible reflection upon the judgment and sense of responsibility of all those involved.

It is respectfully urged the document in question be immediately withdrawn and all copies which have been distributed be recalled.

We consider this entire matter to be of the most serious proportions and re­quest a conference with you and such others as may have been involved so that we may have the complete explanation which we believe we are entitled to have.

I am sure you know that the National Council of Churches is the representative body of 33 Protestant and Orthodox denominations of the United States. The interim national governing body, The General Board, of this organization meets on February 24 and 25 in Oklahoma City. For reasons which will surely be obvious to you I should like to discuss this matter prior to the meeting of the General Board so that my report to the General Board may cover the explanation and remedial action of the Department of Defense and Air Force.

I should he pleased to hear from you at your early convenience.

Most truly,

(Signed) JAMES WINE.

Associate General Secretary

Hon. Carl Vinson, Chairman Committee on Armed Services House of Representatives

Hon. Richard B. Russell


Committee on Armed Services, US Senate

JW :mh

cc: Hon. Dudley C. Sharp

Secretary of the Air ForceGen. Thomas D. White USAF

Chief of Staff, Dept. of the Air Force

Maj. Gen. Wilton B. Persons USA RetAssistant to the President

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead.

Mr. ARENS. Mr. Secretary, would you kindly tell us what action you took after you received this letter?

Secretary SHARP. I immediatey started an investigation of the con­tents of the manual. I received a manual that day—and I don’t re­member the exact time—in which I read the excerpts which were re­ferred to in Mr. Wine’s letter to Secretary Gates, and I found that the manual had already been withdrawn for investigation on the 11th of February.

(At this point Representative Tuck entered the hearing room.) Mr. ARENS. Who had caused that action to be consummated? Secretary SHARP. I think General HOPWOOD.

Mr. ARENS. Tell us, please, sir, who is General HOPWOOD ?

General HOPWOOD. I am General HOPWOOD, Director of Personnel Procurement and Training, on the staff of the United States Air Force.

Mr. ARENS. General, if it would not be an impropriety to yourself, would you kindly interrupt our theme here to tell us under what cir­cumstances and when you caused the directive to be issued withdraw­ing this manual?

General HOPWOOD. I became aware of the manual on the morning of the 11th of February.

Mr. ARENS. By what device did you become aware of it?

General HOPWOOD. Two of my staff officers came to my office with the manual, and there were questions in three general categories that caused me to withdraw the manual for review. The first of these

I would like to read, if I may, some of the statements.

Some of the statements introduced confusion and misinterpretation of Air Force policy and doctrine. This was fairly apparent in the latter portions of the manual.

We recognized that, although the Air Force is obliged to prepare its personnel, whoever they may be, to preserve their effectiveness and loyalty despite subversive pressures, the examples used in this manual appear to be in excess of these requirements and tend to infringe on prerogatives of other governmental agencies and national institutions.

We did want the time to verify and investigate these passages prior to the time that we had issued all the manuals and statements that would go in the text.

Mr. ARENS. Would you kindly tell us the nature of the directive which you issued?

General HOPWOOD. Yes, sir. The directive was telephonic, first to Headquarters, Continental Air Command, telling them to stop issue and to prepare to withdraw manuals that had been issued for further evaluation by appropriate representatives of the Air staff. This was confirmed in a message dispatched at approximately 11 :00 o’clock on the morning of 11 February.

The CHAIRMAN. What was in the manual that caused you to take that action, item by item ?

(At this point Representative Willis entered the hearing room.) General HOPWOOD. I can illustrate the

The CHAIRMAN. I don’t want you to illustrate. I want you to tell me what was in the manual that caused you to have it withdrawn.

General HOPWOOD. In the first instance, we issued a 14-paragraph­page 14-13—about where we are talking about Communism in Religion

The CHAIRMAN. 14-13 ?

Secretary SHARP. No. 15-14.

General HOPWOOD. Excuse me. 15-14, Communism in Religion. It begins on the bottom of that page and extends for several pages thereafter.

The CHAIRMAN. All right

In its own brochure, the National Council of Churches listed the names of the Revision Committee and the Advisory Board.

Is that what you mean ? Starting there ?

Among these were Walter Russell Bowie of Grace Church, New York.

Is that it ?

General HOPWOOD. The sentence which attracted my particular at­tention, sir, was the first paragraph, which says : “From a variety of authoritative sources

The CHAIRMAN. Where is that?

Mr. JACKSON. Right here.

The CHAIRMAN (reading) :

From a variety of authoritative sources, there appears to be overwhelming evidence of Communist anti-religious activity in the United States through the infiltration of fellow-travelers into churches and educational institutions.

Is that it?

General HOPWOOD. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. What is wrong with that?


General HOPWOOD. There is not necessarily anything wrong, Mr. Chairman; • but, because “a variety” was mentioned, because we had not had a chance to review, we felt we should not issue the manual.

The CHAIRMAN. Suppose it said “From several sources” ?

General HOPWOOD. I think our reaction would have been the same.

The CHAIRMAN. Why? Why would you criticize that language “From a variety of authoritative sources”? What is wrong with that?

General Horwood. I think

The CHAIRMAN. It came from a variety of sources.

General HOPWOOD. This is true. Our decision was based on an analysis of what this noncommissioned officer needed to be trained to do. There are other passages I can refer to.

The CHAIRMAN. Wait a minute. Let’s go right to that. “Should be trained to do.” Isn’t one of them recognizing his enemy when he sees one?

General HOPWOOD. This is true.

The CHAIRMAN. Why are you trying to prevent him ? Why are you trying to prevent him from knowing who his enemy is ?

General HOPWOOD. Because, pending an investigation, which we will still continue, we felt that the Air Force could accomplish certain objectives, perhaps, without citing specific examples which may or may not be required for the education and preparation of our military personnel.

Mr. ARENS. General, did you then, or do you now, repudiate the essence of this first paragraph which is to the effect that there has been infiltration of fellow-travelers into churches and educational institutions and attributed to authoritative sources?

General HOPWOOD. No, sir, I do not repudiate the validity of the sources.

My question is the propriety of this degree of specific information and the need for this amount of specific information to accomplish the training purpose for which the manual is written.

Mr. ARENS. General, you were cognizant at the time you issued your order to withdraw this manual and to have it reviewed—and I take it you are cognizant now—of the statements from authoritative sources, from such men as J. Edgar Hoover, from people of unques­tioned integrity and ability and knowledge who testified before this committee, undercover agents of the FBI, similar testimony before other congressional bodies respecting infiltration of fellow-travelers into churches and educational institutions, were you not?

General HOPWOOD. Oh, yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Before we go into this, I think the record ought to show that the Secretary merely acted when he apologized—I put it abjectly. Was it?

Secretary SHARP. I didn’t apologize abjectly.

The CHAIRMAN. Either you or Mr. Gates did. At any rate, the

apology came as a result of the recommendation from the general. You had no independent knowledge of this yourself, did you ? Secretary SHARP. No, sir.

I would have acted the same way. As a matter of fact, I was a little surprised that this action had been taken before I entered the case—let’s call it the case—because I would have acted the same way as regards this paragraph; not the paragraph that has just been men‑




tioned, but the subsequent paragraphs on page 15-14 of this Air Reserve Center Training Manual, indicating that—pointing their finger at any particular organizations in the churches. I felt that this sort of accusation was not necessary, from an Air Force standpoint, to warn its people that they must look in all organizations for Commu­nist infiltration. I think that the Air Force should not enter into the controversy as to whether or not a particular organization or group is infiltrated by communism.

Certainly, unless this group is listed on the Attorney General’s list of subversive activities, I feel that this is something we should keep ourselves clear of, and this is my objection.

Mr. ARENS. Mr. Secretary, when you issued your press release re­pudiating the publication as representing the Air Force views, and issued your apology to the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S., did you, by that act, mean to convey the impression that the Air Force was convinced that the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S. was not infiltrated by fellow-travelers?

Secretary SHARP. No, I did not intend to indicate any concurrence with this statement, or objection to the statement as to its validity. I felt simply that this kind of a statement should not be made in an Air Force publication.

Mr. ARENS; If the facts had been developed by investigators who had checked the records of the Committee on Un-American Activi­ties and other authoritative sources, and if the facts did reveal that a very substantial number of the leadership of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S. had Communist-front records and were infiltrating in churches and educational institutions, would you nevertheless have repudiated the statements in the manual ?

Secretary SHARP. I think I would ; yes, sir, because I don’t believe that this is a controversy in which the Air Force ought to indulge. I think this kind of a controversy is the prerogative of this committee and other activities in the United States, but not of the Air Force. I think we should warn our people that communism might be found in the churches, might be found in the schools, it might even be found in the armed services, it might be found in any organiza­tion; but I think to point our finger at any particular group who is not absolutely proven and on the list of un-American activities as published by the Attorney General, I feel unless these criteria are met we should not involve ourselves pointing our fingers at organizations.

Mr. ARENS. Mr. Secretary, did you, in the course of the last few days, give assurance to the National Council of Churches people that remedial action would be taken with respect to Air Force Training Manual NR. 45-0050, which is a guide for security indoctrination ?

Secretary SHARP. I don’t remember making any such statement. I did write this letter to Mr. Wine. If you would like to have the con­tents of the letter that I wrote to Mr. ‘Wine.

Mr. ARENS. Did you, in essence, assure Mr. Wine that there would be changes made in a second manual which has been developed, Guide for Security Indoctrination?

Secretary SHARP. The second manual—you mean now—which manual are you referring to now, sir?

Mr. ARENS. Air Force Manual 205-5, Guide for Security Indoc­trination.


Secretary SHARP. I did not.

Mr. ARENS. Did anyone in the Air Force in position of authority

give such assurance?

Secretary SHARP. I don’t know of anyone having given any such assurance.

Mr. ARENS. I should like to invite your attention to the quotation attributed to Mr. Wine appearing in the Washington Evening Star,

February 24,1960 :

Mr. Wine also said the Air Force has agreed to amend portions of a second manual objectionable to the council which served as primary source material for the reserve document. The second manual-205-5—is used now as a guide to security indoctrination.

Did anyone in the Air Force, to your knowledge, give such assurance to Mr. Wine?

Secretary SHARP. I don’t know of anyone who gave such assurance. Do you know anyone ?

General HOPWOOD. No.

Secretary SHARP. I might comment there that I read the manual 205-5 that you are referring to, and the portions of it that refer to communism in American churches and American schools. I do not find them objectionable. I think they are proper to have in a man­ual of this type.

Mr. ARENS. The essence then of manual 205-5 with respect to Communist infiltration in churches and in church groups is a tenet with which you are in accord?


Secretary SHARP. I am, yes.


Mr. ARENS. So the record may be absolutely clear, based upon the investigation of the investigators of the Air Force who have been working on these manuals and their reports to you, is it your position, sir, that the facts are that Communists and fellow-travelers are now, and have been in the past, infiltrating church groups, among other groups?

Secretary SHARP. I have heard that they have infiltrated church groups; I do not know whether this has been positively proven, but I certainly think we ought to warn our people that they would be in all probability—and I mean by “they” the Communists—would in all probability attempt to infiltrate church groups or schools or any im­portant group in the United States which they could infiltrate.

Mr. ARENS. In manual, AF Manual 205-5 you say, in essence—or the manual says, in essence, does it not—that Communists are now in­filtrating church groups or have infiltrated church groups?

May I invite your attention to page 53? I should like to read you a few sentences from Air Force Manual 205-5, which I understand you to concur in, and then we will discuss, if you please, sir, some of the statements.

On page 53 of Air Force Manual 205-5, the following appears, does it not sir?

A while back Americans were shocked to find that Communists had infiltrated our churches. It isn’t so shocking though when you consider how the Communists are using Russian churches today. They want to do the same thing here. They want to teach the Soviet gospel from the pulpit.

The Communist Party, USA, has instructed many of its members to join churches and church groups, to take control whenever possible, and to influence the thoughts and actions of as many church-goers as they can.




Communists form front organizations especially to attract Americans with re­ligious interests. The party tries to get leading church men to support Com­munist policies disguised as welfare work for minorities. Earl Browder, former head of the American Communist party, once admitted :

“By going among the religious masses, we are for the first time able to bring our anti-religious ideas to them.”

Are there Communist ministers? Sure. The Communists have members in just about every profession in our country. Of course no clergyman admits he is a Communist when he is one (he is required to keep his membership a secret), but he still does Communist work. The House Un-American Activities Committee lists two Communist ministers—the Rev. Claude C. Williams, a former Presbyterian whose congregation kicked him out for party activities, and the Rev. Eliot White, retired Episcopalian who served as a delegate to a Communist convention and lectured at Communist meetings.

As to whether Communist ministers are a real danger, let’s turn to a state­ment by former President Herbert Hoover :

“I confess to a real apprehension, so long as Communists are able to secure ministers of the gospel to promote their evil work and espouse a cause that is alien to the religion of Christ and Judaism.”

Communists try everything when it comes to churches. They sneak disguised propaganda into church bulletins. They send Communists around to lecture church groups. The head of the Communist Party once spoke at Union The­ological Seminary in New York, and the legislative secretary of the party ad­dressed a conference of 100 ministers in Washington, D. C. The Communists order their younger members into youth groups where they can spread atheism and recruit new Communists. Atheism, Communist-style, is also spread through various organizations like the People’s Institute of Applied Religion, which teaches Communist ideas under the disguise that they are Christian teachings.

Again, to stop Communists, we must be careful not to attack the majority of faithful ministers and church-goers. We must merely search out those who back Moscow right down the line. We can do this, first, by understanding and supporting the teachings of our own religions to the hilt ; then, by getting rid of those who try to pass off Communist ideas as substitutes for what we know are true religious teachings.

I have read you the pertinent paragraphs of Air Force Manual 205-5 concerning which Mr. Wine is quoted in the Washington Eve­ning Star of February 24, as saying that the Air Force has agreed to amend portions which are objectionable.

Am I correct in my interpretation of your testimony that neither you nor anyone to your knowledge in official position in the Air Force has given Mr. Wine the assurance which is attributed to him in the press ?

Secretary SHARP. Certainly I have not. I do not know of anyone who has.

Mr. ARENS. Am I likewise, and is the record likewise, clear that you, sir, based upon the information which has been made available to you by your subordinates, concur in the language which I have just read to you in Air Force Manual 205-5 ?

Secretary SHARP. I would say that I certainly agree with the as­sumption that the Communist Party would obviously in its activities attempt to infiltrate the churches as outlined here.

I must say that I have not investigated the two individuals referred to by name in these paragraphs which you have read as to whether or not they have actually been proven to be guilty of the charges out­lined.

Mr. SCHERER. The counsel in reading from the manual merely stated that those two are listed by this committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Among others.

Mr. SCHERER. Among others.




Mr. ARENS. I would like to ask permission of the chairman to back up a bit in the manual because there are two other items in this main manual which precede the matter which we are talking about now. I would like, if you please, Mr. Chairman, to ask him about those.

The CHAIRMAN. Before you do that, I think we ought to go over the contents of this manual.

Mr. ARENS. That is what I meant, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. That is at the bottom of 15-14 :

In its own brochure, the National Council of Churches listed the names of the Revision Committee and the Advisory Board. Among these were Walter Russell Bowie of Grace Church, New York.

Do you know anything about him, Mr. Secretary ?

Secretary SHARP. No, I don’t.

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead.

Mr. ARENS. Does the Air Force to your knowledge maintain a liai‑

son with the congressional committees investigating communism? Secretary SHARP. I don’t know whether they do or not. No, sir;

I don’t know that. I don’t know.

Mr. ARENS. Do you know,. sir, that the information of the House Committee on Un-American Activities and of the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee is available on a liaison basis to the military ?

Secretary SHARP. I am sure it is.

Mr. ARENS. I announce to you without any sense of criticism that that information is from time to time readily made available to the military upon their request to the committee.

Mr. SCHERER. Are such requests made ? Do you know that ? Mr. ARENS. Yes, sir.

Mr. Secretary, you are cognizant, of course, of the fact that all of

the information of the Federal Bureau of Investigation respecting

Communists and Communist infiltration is available to the Air Force? Secretary SHARP. Yes, sir.


Mr. ARENS. Mr. Secretary, the chairman stated in his opening re­marks that at least a dozen persons who have been identified before this committee by competent witnesses under oath as Communists also profess or have professed to be members of the clergy. Do you have any information which would dispute that, or any reason to doubt that?

Secretary SHARP. No. You mean to doubt the fact?

Mr. ARENS. To doubt the validity of that statement?

Secretary SHARP. Of that statement ?

Mr. ARENS. Yes, sir.

Secretary SHARP. That certain witnesses testified against other wit­nesses to the effect that they were members of a Communist organi­zation ?

Mr. ARENS. Yes, sir.

Secretary SHARP. No, sir. If that was the statement of this com­mittee I have no reason to doubt it.

Mr. ARENS. Did your statement of repudiation of the Air Force manual in any sense mean a repudiation of the validity or the integrity of the statements attributed to committee sources by the author of the manual ?


Secretary SHARP. I have no reason to doubt that they were authen­tic, although, actually, I have not checked in detail to find whether the statements were accurate.

Mr. ARENS. Did you, in your statement of repudiation, intend a repudiation of the integrity, validity, or accuracy of the testimony before the Committee on Un-American Activities which is quoted in this manual?

Secretary SHARP. No, sir. If it is properly quoted, I certainly did not intend such a repudiation.

Mr. ARENS. May I, if you please, Mr. Chairman, ask about two things that precede this and then proceed to some specifics?

The CHAIRMAN. Before you do that I think we ought to go to the section that the Secretary has found objectionable.

“Not only were these men—” and mentioning the names of people in the document—”Walter Russell Bowie with a total of 29—” Com­munist fronts—”Henry J. Cadbury and George Dahl, 13″

Mr. ARENS. Mr. Chairman, would you pardon an interruption on that ?

We have checked our records very carefully since this manual has been produced, and I have the latest statistics on each of these men that I would be glad to read into the record. In many instances, it is more.


The CHAIRMAN. This is an understatement.

Mr. ARENS. A complete understatement.


The CHAIRMAN. This is an understatement of their Communist affiliation ?


Mr. ARENS. Would you care to have me give those ?

The CHAIRMAN. You go ahead and do that.


Mr. ARENS. May I first say, Mr. Chairman, in view of the Secre­tary’s repudiation of the information conveyed respecting the National Council of Churches of Christ in America, the chairman issued a statement to the effect that the leadership of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States of America had hundreds or at least over 100 affiliations with Communist fronts and causes. Since then we have made careful, but yet incomplete checks, and it is a complete understatement. Thus far of the leadership of the National Council of Churches of Christ in America, we have found over 100 persons in leadership capacity with either Communist-front records or records of service to Communist causes. The aggregate affiliations of the leadership, instead of being in the hundreds as the chairman first indicated, is now, according to our latest count, into the thousands, and we have yet to complete our check, which would certainly suggest, on the basis of the authoritative sources of this com­mittee, that the statement that there is infiltration of fellow-travelers in churches and educational institutions is a complete understatement.

Now, with reference to the people whose names are specified, on 15-14 the first is Walter Russell Bowie whose name appears on 15-14. Our records thus far, and we have only made an examination of the most available information, is that he has had over 33 affilia­tions with Communist fronts and causes; that Henry J. Cadbury has had a total of not less than nine, which we have been able to con­firm—the manual says 13—that George Dahl, concerning whom the



manual says had 13 affiliations, we have thus far verified not 13 but 18. With reference to Leroy Waterman, we have thus far identified and verified 20 connections with Communist fronts or causes. With reference to Fleming James, we have thus far verified a total of 25.

The CHAIRMAN. ‘Who are these people? Are they connected with the National Council ?

Mr. ARENS. These are persons, most of whom are connected with the National Council of Churches in some capacity.

The CHAIRMAN. It was their representative who complained about this manual ; is that it? Wine?

Mr. ARENS. That is correct.

On the next succeeding page, Mr. Secretary, you see the reference there to Dr. Harry F. Ward as being a person who has been identified as a member of the Communist Party.

Did your repudiation of the Air Force Training Manual and your apology to the National Council of Churches carry with it an inten­tion on your part to deny the validity or integrity of the records of this committee showing that Dr. Harry F. Ward has been identified as being a member of the Communist Party ?

Secretary SHARP. No, sir. It did not intend to either deny or affirm the fact that this committee’s records were accurate or not accurate. I simply felt and still feel that while it is the duty of this committee to investigate these matters pertaining to individuals and particular groups, whether religious or otherwise, that it is not in the best interests of ;he Air Force to point out specific organizations or specific people, who it is claimed by this committee or are connected with Communist fronts.

Mr. ARENS. Did you at any time in the course of your public state­ments or press releases make it clear that you were not repudiating the authenticity, validity, or integrity of the records of this committee or of the records of the FBI or of the other source material ?

Secretary SHARP. No, I did not, sir.

Mr. ARENS. You are doing that now; is that correct?

Secretary SHARP. I only stated that this was not an Air Force posi­tion; that we repudiated this as an Air Force position. It might well be the position of this committee or the position of the FBI, but it was my feeling that the Air Force should not establish a position of this kind as to any particular individuals who were not specifically listed on the Attorney General’s list of un-American activities.

Mr. ARENS. Am I absolutely clear, and is the record clear, that you are not now nor did you at any time intend a repudiation of the validity of the material attributed to this committee, attributed to the FBI or other intelligence agencies, which is quoted in here respecting Communist infiltration in churches and infiltration by fellow-travelers in church groups?

Secretary SHARP. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, would it not have been sufficient to have withdrawn this manual without apologizing to people who have been in prominent active places in their organization, people whose object is to destroy the Government of the United States, belonging to organizations which have that as their objective?

Would it not have been adequate to have withdrawn this manual?AIR


I just had occasion to read the statement by the Secretary of De­fense, whom I admire very much. I do not know why lie would say such a thing:

“In response to the letter of the National Council of Churches of Christ of the United States”—a response to a letter, nothing else—”I have assured this fine organization of my very genuine regrets re­garding the statement that appeared in Air Force Reserve Manual,” and so on.

Mr. JACKSON. Mr. Chairman, I would say in connection with that, and I subscribe thoroughly, I think such a statement as was made by the Secretary of Defense, whom I also admire very greatly, has done great harm to the already difficult task that confronts this committee, the committee on the other side, and the Attorney General. Actually, the effect of the action taken by the Air Force, Mr. Secretary, was to tell 180 million people in this country by the retraction of the manual that the Air Force did not believe the statements made.

The effect of this repudiation handled in the way it was and cou­pled with an apology to individuals who, as the chairman has said, have hundreds of Communist-front affiliations has been to hurt our work.

Secretary SHARP. Mr. Jackson, I think it is very unfortunate if that is the impression we gave.

I would like to read

Mr. SCHERER. May I say, Mr. Secretary, that the mail that I am getting from my district and from other places in the United States indicates that that is what the effect of that statement has been in­sofar as the public is concerned.

Mr. DOYLE. May I state at that point that my mail is such that it indicates that the work of this committee in the minds of the people out West who have read the newspaper reports—that the work of this committee is discredited as a result of the unfortunate apology and letter by the Secretary—without further explanation as to why.

The CHAIRMAN. You may call it unfortunate. I call it stupid.

Secretary SHARP. I wonder if I might read into the record the let­ter that I wrote to Mr. James Wine, associate general secretary of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States :

475 Riverside Drive,

New York, New York.

Dear Mr. Wine :

This letter is to confirm our conversation of yesterday and again assure to you that the Air Force does not condone the publication of material such as that contained in the CONAC training manual about which you wrote Sec­retary Gates. The manual has been withdrawn and action is being taken to prevent recurrence of issuance of such material.

The CHAIRMAN. Why did you do that? Don’t you want the non­commissioned officers to know who these people are?

Secretary SHARP. Yes, sir. But I think it is a dangerous thing for the Air Force to delve into the areas that this committee should delve into. I think that we should leave that to this committee by simply making a statement that there is danger in the infiltration in the areas of the churches and of the schools and of others, almost every group in our country.


Mr. SCHERER. The Air Force is not delving into it. The Air Force manual is merely reporting what has already been found to exist by various congressional committees, by the Federal Bureau of Investi­gation, and other security agencies.

Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Secretary, the thing that I cannot reconcile is this : I understand, according to your testimony here this morning, you have no objection, apparently, to generalizations with regard to the fact that there is infiltration and that there is a continuing threat of infiltration. What you state now to this committee is that you object to specifics.

Secretary SHARP. That is correct.

Mr. JOHANSEN. I cannot understand from the portion of the letter to Mr. Wine that you quoted that you make any such distinction at all. It seems to me that you are repudiating both the general and the specific statements and, in other words, it seems to me your re­pudiation to Mr. Wine is quite different and much more sweeping than your statement and your distinction that you draw here before the committee.

Secretary SHARP. No, sir

The CHAIRMAN. Did you ever deny the truth about it?

Secretary SHARP. In my meeting with Mr. Wine I made it quite clear that what I was objecting to in the Air Force manual was the fact that it was pointing its finger at a particular group or a partic­ular organization but which did not appear on this list.

Mr. JOHANSEN. If the manual makes the generalized assertion, isn’t the Air Force open to challenge to support that generalization with specifics ? And yet you repudiate any reference to specifics. How can you justify the generalization without relating it to specifics, particularly if it is under a challenge?

Secretary SHARP. I think in that case what we should do is refer to the testimony of this committee but not publish this testimony gratis. Some of these quotations might have been taken out of con­text. It is very difficult to know how many of them are provable in court or accepted as adequate proof by the Attorney General in his statement of people involved in un-American activities or or­ganizations which are involved in un-American activities.

I don’t think it is the business of the Air Force to indicate which of these bits of evidence or perhaps they are conclusive evidence—I don’t know—which have been brought before this fine committee.

The CHAIRMAN. We will concede that. But then when you wanted to correct what is not in conformity with your idea, why did you go way out of your way to apologize?

Secretary SHARP. I don’t think we apologized. I simply think this is not what we like to have in our manual. There is certainly nothing in this letter that indicates we are apologizing. I am simply saying we do not condone the publication of this kind of controversial detailed material in our training manual.

Mr. JOHANSEN. Are the statements that appeared in 205-5 under challenge or have they been under challenge from this same source ?

Secretary SHARP. They apparently are now; yes, sir. They have never been under challenge directly to me.

Mr. JOHANSEN. In other words, what Mr. Wine and those of his mind want is the avoidance of any reference to the fact of infiltration or attempted infiltration of the religious groups.




Secretary SHARP. I have read indications of that attitude in the newspapers. I have never received a direct communication from Mr. Wine.

Mr. JOHANSEN. Are you prepared to resist that sort of demand? Secretary SHARP. Yes, sir; I am.

The CHAIRMAN. Did Mr. Wine ever deny the statements contained in the manual ?

Secretary SHARP. No, he didn’t.

Mr. WILLIS. May I ask a question?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, Mr. Willis.

Mr. WILLIS. What puzzles me is the letter that you read and it is this: Why did you stop so abruptly? And I am just wondering why couldn’t you have gone as far as you are going today in adding a sentence : “We do not mean to imply that there is no infiltration in church or other groups or question the accuracy of the reference ma­terial. We simply do not want to take sides with you or the reference material, but we simply prefer not to have it in there.”

You have left a wide impression that you are taking sides, and that what is in there is inaccurate.

Secretary SHARP. I think that undoubtedly

Mr. WILLIS. It is a black eye on this committee, ultimately, or will certainly be made so.

Secretary SHARP. We certainly did not intend any aspersions on this committee. I am sorry that I did not go into more detail in this letter. There is no question about that, because that was my opinion at the time, and I certainly expressed it that way. There was no doubt about that.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Sharp, this is the thing that disturbs all of us: In your statement to the press, the very first thing you said was : , “Secretary Sharp categorically repudiated the publication as rep­resenting the Air Force views.”

Now the segment of the left-wing press and others that want to look at things in certain ways did not go further than to just pick out the words “categorically repudiated the publication.”

Secretary SHARP. Whether I made that statement in exactly those words, I meant to say, certainly, that we repudiate these as Air Force views because I feel that in going into this kind of detail the Air Force was getting into areas which it should not be in, and we should—I feel that it is better stated that it was ill-advised and ill-considered for the Air Force to include these things in its training manual, which was what was intended.

The CHAIRMAN. You saw the statement made by the Secretary, didn’t you ?

Secretary SHARP. I had seen it; yes, sir.

Mr. JACKSON. Mr. Chairman, going back to the matter of naming the National Council of Churches by name and following that with some additional information, I am trying to place myself in the posi­tion of an instructor in this subject

Secretary SHARP. Yes, sir.

Mr. JACKSON. I have given military instruction, Mr. Secretary. As to a general subject “communism in religion,” the statement is made categorically that from a variety of authoritative sources there has been infiltration of some churches and church groups. One of


the men attending a class using a manual may say, “How do I know that ? Tell me more about it.”

You are asking him to take, on faith, a very serious statement, and precluding him from asking any questions to the point.

Secretary SHARP. I would think, then, you would suggest, if he wanted to go further into the matter, that he should request a copy of the hearings of this committee and reports of this committee and the great deal of evidence.

Mr. JACKSON. I think that is the long way around the barn. He is in a class. He is being taught. He is being given instruction, and categorical statements are made. I don’t think we should require the individual enlisted man to run around Capitol Hill to get a variety of hearings so that he can probe further into the matter.

The CHAIRMAN. If he could find Capitol Hill.

Mr. JACKSON. It seems to me that, having made that statement, it is absolutely necessary to give some substantiation to it in the text­book, the letter and text.

Mr. JOHANSEN. At least in terms of source material.

Mr. SCHERER. All through this manual, Mr. Secretary, you refer to other organizations, you name them specifically, you point out which are Communist-front organizations. You refer by name to individuals who have participated in Communist activities.

I call your attention to page 15-4 where you name : The Abraham Lincoln Brigade, American Youth for Democracy, The League of American Writers, American Patriots, Inc., and about five or six others.

I doubt whether the Air Force would be in a position to prove in court that these are Communist-dominated and controlled organiza­tions. Yet you have no hesitancy in naming these.

Secretary SHARP. I think we should have great hesitancy in naming these unless they are listed as subversive organizations.

I don’t think the Air Force ought to be in a position of offering as such fact any specific organization because this is not our business.

I think that we can, certainly, list those organizations, if we wish, that are listed specifically by the Attorney General as subversive organizations, but I don’t think that the Air Force should point its finger at any organization in an official publication that it cannot prove.

Mr. SCHERER. Just hurriedly glancing through this manual—The CHAIRMAN. Wait a minute.

This does not charge the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S. as being a proscribed organization at all. It merely states that of the 95 persons who served in the project which they sponsored, 30 have been affiliated with pro-Communist fronts, projects, and publications.

I think that is a great example to show a youngster.

I, too, taught in military schools, in the Navy ; naval aviation ac- tually. And I know that the only way to make these kids understand is to give them an example of something.

Here you are not charging this National Council with anything. I think you are depriving people who ought to know just exactly how these enemies of ours operate, just what kind of a cloak they get behind.



If you do not put it in your new manual, then you are depriving them of something they ought to know.

Mr. ARENS. Mr. Chairman, we have two other areas of inquiry, if you please, sir.

Mr. Secretary, beginning on page 15-3 of the manual there is language which I have to characterize or talk about, and then I will read.

The public press has carried in its stories respecting the manual, language which intimates that the authors of the manual feel that Americans don’t have a right to know what is going on in general. I would like to read the entire two or three paragraphs to you, and then we will talk about it, if you please, sir.

Secretary SHARP. All right.

The CHAIRMAN. At the bottom of the page?

Mr. ARENS. Yes, sir.

When a newspaper prints some so-called secret data, It merely means that the Government no longer considers that particular data secret—it does not mean we have no secrets left. Or it could mean that clever newspapermen took pieces of unclassified information which they were authorized to have, put them together, and came up with the right answer. However, because such accounts may have given the correct information does not mean that the infor­mation is no longer classified. Newspapers are not official—and until the Government declassifies security information, it remains classified.

Another rather foolish remark often heard is that Americans have a right to know what’s going on. Most people realize the foolhardiness of such a sug­gestion. If a football team should start telling the other side the plays it planned to use, their opponents would sweep them off the field. It’s the same in war—hot or cold; if we tell our secrets, we are likely to be beaten, and beaten badly.

Mr. Secretary, the whole import of that language is that the mili­tary is entitled to protect secrets, is it not?

Secretary SHARP. Yes, I would think so; yes, sir.

Mr. ARENS. It is not intended, as you read the two paragraphs in entire context, to convey the impression that the American people as such are not entitled to know in general what is going on; isn’t that correct?

Secretary SHARP. That certainly is correct; yes, sir.

Mr. ARENS. Is it your impression, sir, that there has been conveyed a misinterpretation of the essence of this language because it was con­veyed out of context?

Secretary SHARP. I certainly would agree with that; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. May I ask just one more question. I think this is of greatest importance.

Will this information, this material that Mr. Arens just read, be contained in the new revised issue?

Secretary SHARP. I would hope that the substance of it would be contained. I would personally have changed the words of the first sentence in such a way that they could not be taken out of context, and I think there was unfortunate wording that lent itself to that sort of thing. I think it was even unfortunate that from the manual 205-5, where they discuss the same thing in the first sentence, two words were in it which were not in this new manual.

Mr. JACKSON. What, is the page number on that?

Secretary SHARP. That is page 82 in the old manual, and 15-4 in the new one.


You will notice on page 82 of the manual 205-5, at the bottom of the page, the first sentence of the last paragraph reads, “Another rather silly remark often heard concerning security is that Amer­icans have a right to know what’s going on.”

Mr. ARENS. The only reasonable interpretation on that is that the author of the manual is trying to say, is he not, that we cannot let secrets, defense secrets or intelligence secrets, be available to the pub­lic because the enemy would catch them? Isn’t that correct?

Secretary SHARP. I am sorry. I missed that.

Mr. ARENS. I was just saying, sir, that the only reasonable inter- pretation of that language, when it is read in complete context, is that we cannot make available, the Government cannot make avail­able military secrets or intelligence secrets to the public at large because, of course, the enemy would then get them. Isn’t that correct?

Secretary SHARP. I think that is perfectly clear; yes, sir. If you read the whole paragraph

Mr. JACKSON. When taken in its proper context.

Secretary SHARP. I think it was unfortunate that they left out the words “concerning security,” those two words in the quotation of the same paragraph in the training manual, the Air Reserve Center Train­ing Manual, which was a later publication.

The CHAIRMAN. Concerning security only ?

Secretary SHARP. I mean that would clarify what they are talking about. It is security matters.

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, yes.

Secretary SHARP. It would have been better if they had left those words in.

Mr. ARENS. But in the manual they speak of secrets, do they not? Secretary SHARP. Oh, yes.

Mr. ARENS. Mr. Chairman, if it meets with your approval, I would like to inquire respecting another item in the manual.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Mr. ARENS. Mr. Secretary, on page 15-6 there are two paragraphs where I suggest we probably have the same situation, namely, where there has been conveyed to the American people a wrong impression respecting the contents of the manual because certain language was taken, again, out of context.

I should like to read to you two paragraphs :

At this point it may be well to make some separation between real subversives and the disaffected and chronic complainers. Subversion is willful activity against the United States, punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Jus­tice. Disaffection is a lack of loyalty or affection for the United States not accompanied by action and isn’t a crime. Chronic complaining is only grum­bling, and is not directed at the United States but rather at specific persons or activities. Often the complainer works harder than anyone else, and finds in complaining a sort of nervous escape valve, such as, “I do all the work around here ; why don’t you guys help out sometime ?” However, if you suspect an individual of deliberate subversion, report him, of course ; but try to be sure he isn’t just disaffected or a complainer.

If you do know of a disaffected person, nevertheless, he will bear watching.

Mr. Secretary, in the public press I saw an interpretation to the effect that the reader of this manual is admonished by its author to watch disaffected persons because they may be subversive.

It is true, is it not, Mr. Secretary, when we read the entire two para­graphs in complete context that the author of the manual is trying tomake a complete distinction between a deliberate subversive and one who is only a complainer on the other hand ?

Secretary SHARP. It certainly seems that way to me; yes, sir.

Mr. ARENS. Do you agree with the interpretation which I suggest, namely, that there has been conveyed a wrong impression respecting the contents of the manual on this score because certain language was taken out of context?

Secretary SHARP. That certainly is my impression; yes, sir. Mr. SCHERER. May I ask a question ?

Has the Air Force or the Department of Defense in any way com­plained or made a statement publicly that this charge about “right to know” was taken out of context? Have you tried to explain the full import of this part of the text?

Secretary SHARP. I don’t think we have.

Mr. SCHERER. Don’t you think you should do that?

Secretary SHARP. I think we should; yes, sir.

Mr. MOULdER. Mr. Secretary, when was the manual first printed containing the statement that the National Council of Churches ob­jected to?

Secretary SHARP. Air Reserve Center Training Manual was issued, as I understand it, on January 4, 1960. It was the one that they objected to first.

If you are speaking of the Air Force manual, which is—

I want to point out this is an Air Reserve training manual, and the other one referred to is 205-5, which is an Air Force manual. An Air Force manual is an approved Headquarters Manual—Head­quarters, Air Force. It applies to more than one command whereas manuals applying to only one command—and this Air Reserve Cen­ter Training Manual applied only to the Continental Air Command—are not referred to as Air Force manuals, and do not receive the same kind of supervision at Headquarters, United States Air Force.

Mr. MOULdER. In the beginning of your testimony you made some reference to the conclusion that it was not within the prerogative of the functions of the Air Force to investigate communism in churches.

These manuals are not instructions or directions to investigate, are they? They are really in the nature of an educational or in­formation carried on and given to the members of the Air Force. Isn’t that correct ?

Secretary SHARP. I think they are simply

In talking largely about security, this earlier manual 205-5 is a guide for security indoctrination for the Department of the Air Force, and is simply to point out, while we must look everywhere for Communists’ infiltration

Mr. MOULdER. Is it your plan to revise the manuals or have they been revised?

Secretary SHARP. We are having a revision of this Air Force manual 205-5 prepared. This was ordered some time ago. Is that right, General HOPWOOD?

Not as a result of this investigation simply, because this manual
was published in 1955 and we felt it should be brought up to date.
MOULdER. In the process of doing that will you confer with
the Committee on Un-American Activities and the Internal Security


Subcommittee and the Attorney General’s office and the FBI for any information which you may wish to use in the manual?

Secretary SHARP. Yes, sir. I would hope we would, to be sure it is authentic.

This Air Reserve Center Training Manual of the Continental Air Command has been withdrawn from distribution for restudy. Mr. WILLIS. When was that report issued ?

Secretary SHARP. What was that?

Mr. WILLIS. When was that report issued? Was that issued? Secretary SHARP. It was issued January 4, this year.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything in this manual that links churches, as such, with communism ?

Secretary SHARP. I don’t think so. I don’t know exactly what you mean by link.

It means it can be used

The CHAIRMAN. Members of various churches.

Secretary SHARP. That is right.


Secretary SHARP. It can be used

The CHAIRMAN. I am looking now at an article that appeared in the press this morning concerning a resolution purportedly adopted by the General Board of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. which convened in Oklahoma City. The resolution stated that the Air Force had violated the guarantee of “the free exercise of religion” contained in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitu­tion.

This is the sort of thing this “fine” organization is capable of. There is nothing in this manual, is there, that indicates an interference with the free exercise of religon ?

Mr. JOHANSEN. In that connection, Mr. Secretary, have you yet
received a copy of that resolution adopted in Oklahoma City this
week by the General Board of the National Council of Churches?
Secretary SHARP. I have not received a copy of it. I only know
of it from what I read in the paper this morning, which the chairman

just read from. Mr. JOHANSEN. I direct the Secretary’s attention to this paragraph 3 of the resolution as quoted in the press this morning :

Resolved: That the General Board of the National Council of Churches:

(3) Insists that the material contained in Air Force Manual 205-5 “Guide to Security Indoctrination” dated 1955, which is considered equally objection­able, be deleted and that a full explanation of all matters incidental to the appearance of such material in these manuals be made public at the earliest possible moment * * *.

I think that is a clear notice to you that this General Board ex­pects to exercise censorship control over what appears in this manual, and I think the department ought to be on clear notice that that is the intent of this General Board.

And it is my personal judgment that that ought to be resisted, and resisted completely, and that the Secretary of Defense and the Sec­retary of Air Force and all other parties concerned ought to be aware of the pressures and of the apparent end purpose that they have in mind, and, without meaning to be critical, at least not to be naive as to




what their intention is. That intention, as I see it, is to control and censor the facts about Communist activity in this country, whether it is in general terms, that you say is proper, or in specific terms, the expediency of which you question.

Secretary SHARP. I read that quoted minute, I guess they were called, of this meeting this organization had in Oklahoma recently, and I was disturbed, too, by the implications that appeared there.

I feel very strongly that we have a right and duty to educate our people as to the dangers of communism so that they can be on guard against it all the time.

Mr. JOHANSEN. Wherever manifest; wherever those dangers are manifest.

Secretary SHARP. Apparently there is some difference of opinion as to how far it is appropriate for the Air Force to go in this area.

Mr. JOHANSEN. I do not think there is any difference of opinion on the part of the authors of this resolution. Any mention of communism or Communist infiltration or attempts in the religious field is, by this dictum, to be taboo completely.

Secretary SHARP. If that is a correct statement it would indicate that ; yes, sir.

Mr. JACK SON. Mr. Secretary, in the revised edition of this particular manual, is it contemplated that the material relative to communism in religion is going to come out of the revised manual ? Is any men­tion at all going to be in the new manual with respect to the efforts of the Communist Party to infiltrate into church institutions?

Secretary SHARP. I would hope so; yes, sir.

Mr. JACKSON. I would think it would be a dismal retreat from the facts of life if it is not pointed out that these efforts are going on.

The Communist Party is not stupid and, obviously, would not neglect as important a field in our national life as churches.

Within the last month, here in the city of Washington, in a Method­ist church, a former president of the National Council of Churches sat in a forum discussion with an identified agent of the Communist Party, one who was convicted of contempt of Congress, whose appeal was recently turned down, and who is probably going to jail. This was




not a matter in which the church individuals involved had no knowl­edge of the nature of the meeting, because for weeks it had been dis­cussed i n the press.

One Baptist church in the District—and I hope Heaven will look kindly on the minister of that church—refused to let the group use his church for that purpose when the nature of the meeting became apparent and when it was made known that an identified, convicted Communist was going to be on the platform with high church officials.

I would hope that in this revised manual it will again be pointed out very clearly that there is a continuing effort to infiltrate the churches of this country.

Secretary SHARP. I would say that if it were not in the manual, we would be very derelict in our duty to inform our people.

Mr. JACKSON. I would look forward to seeing the manual when it comes out because the same thing that pertains to churches pertains to some of the schools of this country.

Secretary SHARP. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Arens, do you have any more ?


Mr. ARENS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire, as the chairman knows,


in your discussion with me, there is another item on which we could interrogate the Secretary. It is not germane to the manual as such. May I inquire whether or not the chairman wants to get into it now?

The CHAIRMAN. On the security field?

Mr. ARENS. Yes, sir. It is a question for your own determination if you want to get into that now.

The CHAIRMAN. This is off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. DOYLE. I would suggest that the new manual should direct the attention of the Air Force personnel further than to churches and schools.

Mr. JACKSON. I did not mean to so limit it.

Mr. DOYLE. Directed to all and any organizations, such as labor unions or others. Do not limit it to churches and schools. That is my suggestion.

I call your attention to the statement by our chairman in his pre­liminary statement with reference to the Department of Defense seminar.

I had the privilege of being there at least a few hours as a guest of one of my distinguished reserve officers from California. I saw the manual used there. It may be that our library has that manual. I do not know. But if it does not, Mr. Chairman, our library ought to have a copy of that Department of Defense manual which goes ex­haustively into this very subject of the Communist attack.

It seems to me that with the Department of Defense bringing some 200 more or less reserve officers from all over the Nation to at­tend that seminar there in order to indoctrinate them with the danger of communism and to emphasize that the Department of Defense per­sonnel must be aware of that as another battlefront, it just seems too bad that this incident would come up after you spent thousands of dollars to bring men from all over the Nation to indoctrinate your very personnel to the danger of communism, then to be caught in this situation where the authoritative sources in this field on the Hill and the FBI and the Attorney General’s list are more or less ridiculed.

I want to call to your attention, Mr. Secretary, an item that ap­peared in the morning paper, to show you one reason why I make the statement about the effect of this incident on this function with this particular committee, and I want to ask you one question :

Here it is, referring to the fact of your appearance and being scheduled to tell the House Un-American Activities Committee why you withdrew the training manual and ordered the security guide revised.

Notice this, and this news item goes all over our Nation, by the Associated Press :

Much of the material in both publications

that is both your publications that we are discussing

was based upon information compiled by the House Un-American Activities Committee.

So nationwide this committee is getting a kick and a cussin’ from its enemies and from those who don’t know the facts.




Now, one thing more‑

– The CHAIRMAN. We do not object to that, but we do not like it coin­ing from people we think are on the same team. That is the thing we object to.

Mr. DOYLE. One thing more.

I noticed you several times referred to the Attorney General’s list as an accredited list in your judgment. Is that correct?

Are you willing to take the appraisal of the Attorney General’s list for your authority in the new manual, for instance, as to their publication ?

Secretary SHARP. I always thought that that was an accredited list of organizations in which

Mr. DOYLE. I am not inferring it is not. I noticed you relied upon it, apparently inferentially, at least, and you are willing to rely upon it.

Secretary SHARP. I would think that any organization that might not be on that list, it might be such a controversial issue that it would not be wise for the Air Force to enter into a criticism of that organization.

Mr. DOYLE. Then you are not willing to rely on any Government list or conclusion if you are not willing to rely on that.

Secretary SHARP. Yes, sir. I am willing to rely on that. I think we would point at that list as being pretty conclusive evidence or quite conclusive evidence that these organizations are subversive.

Mr. DOYLE. All right. Thank you.

Mr. WILLIS. Mr. Secretary, I would like to make this statement and ask you a question :

When we look into defense contracts we are accused of investigating labor unions, and when we find some Communists in colleges we are investigating schools. Recently we looked into the youth movement and we were accused of investigating youth. But at the same time on the basis of your advice, because we rely on the military, and we spend between $40 billion and $50 billion a year for defending somebody against someone. I am under the impression that is the Communists. We are in a bad fix, aren’t we, both you and we.

Secretary SHARP. We have a battle on our hands, if that is what you mean.

The CHAIRMAN. Governor Tuck?

Mr. TUCK. I have no questions.

Mr. JACKSON. Just to summarize the position and get this abso- lutely clear on the record : in the repudiation of the material inques­tion, the Air Force was taking the position that they should not desig­nate by name, organizations or individuals who might be subversive in nature.

It was not, however, the intent of the Department of the Air Force to bring into question in any way the sources upon which the writer of the pamphlet drew. I think this is very important in order to cor­rect a widespread impression that, by repudiation and apology, the Department of the Air Force was saying in effect that this is a lot of tommyrot..

This was not the position that you took, Mr. Secretary, in your action respecting this manual.

Secretary SHARP. It was not, and I agree with your statement, and. in all probability we should do something in the way of a statement to clarify this position.





Mr. JACKSON. I think it would be very helpful to all concerned. It would clear the atmosphere a great deal if something along this line could be done.

Mr. WILLIS. Mr. Jackson, may I say that is exactly what I meant to convey a while ago, that his letter stopped in such an abrupt fashion that, unfortunately, a wrong impression was left.

Mr. JACKSON. Now an excellent opportunity to do this might be upon receipt of the resolution from the National Council of Churches when it comes to your attention.

Secretary SHARP. Surely.

Mr. JACKSON. One more brief question.

Is any action contemplated, disciplinary or in reprisal, against Mr. Hyde who was responsible, so I understand, for writing this material ?

Secretary SHARP. This matter has not been finally decided yet. I think that people who do not follow their instructions—and it might appear that Mr. Hyde had not—should be certainly reprimanded, if that is the case.

Now it is my understanding—we are investigating this matter—that certain outlines were sent from the Continental Air Command to the Air Training Command on which to write this manual, and that it appears that the outlines were not followed. And it appears, in my opinion, that certain bad judgment was used in what was put into the manual.

Mr. JACKSON. I think this points up another important aspect of this matter. It certainly does to me.

I would like to see what guidelines were laid clown to the man or men who authored this manual.

The CHAIRMAN. Where are the guidelines?

Secretary SHARP. I would think that I can produce them.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to have them right away.

Let me tell you something : If you so much as say “Naughty boy” to this group of people who are far more expert than you are, it will blow that up out of all proportion. They will have him shot at sun- rise, figuratively speaking, for telling the truth.

Mr. JACKSON. Furthermore, some sort of ruckus will break loose on the floor of the House of Representatives. This I can assure you, Mr. Secretary, unless there has been a violation of direct and explicit in­structions—that is an entirely different matter-‑

Secretary SHARP. These are the things we are deciding now and try­ing to get the facts.

Mr. JACKSON. If there were enough flexibility in these general di­rectives which conceivably could have led the man or the men respon­sible for this material to exercise their judgment as to what should go in, that puts an entirely different face on the matter, regardless of how definitive these instructions were as to what was to be put in and what was to be omitted, as I see it.

Mr. SCHERER. Mr. Secretary, do I understand the import of your testimony this morning to be that this manual was not withdrawn be­cause any of the statements contained therein were not true?

Secretary SHARP. It was not withdrawn because we interpreted them to be not true. We did not investigate whether or not the state­ments were true. We did not consider it to be appropriate to put those statements in.

Mr. SCHERER. Can’t you give me a Yes or No to my question ?

Isn’t that the import of your testimony here this morning, that this manual was not withdrawn because any of the material con­tained therein, about which complaint was made, was untrue? The truth or falsity of these statements had nothing to do with the with­drawal of this manual.

Secretary SHARP. That is correct. The truth or falsity of these statements had nothing to do with the withdrawal of the manual.

Mr. SCHERER. When I made the statement that the import of your testimony is that the manual was not withdrawn because any of the statements contained therein were not true, that is an accurate sum­marization of your testimony, is it not?

Secretary SHARP. Except that I would like to put it this way, that whether they were true or not had nothing to do with withdrawing the manual.

Mr. SCHERER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make just one more observation. I have been a member of this Committee on Un-Ameri­can Activities for the past 8 years. Every time we have inquired into the attempts of Communists or Communist-fronters to worm their way into the churches, the committee has been bitterly attacked and charged with investigating religion—with opposing churches—with interfering with religious freedom in violation of the Constitution.

In connection with this current inquiry, these same charges are again being made by some people. I feel, therefore, it is necessary and timely that I point out a few facts which show conclusively that these accusations are completely false and that just the opposite is the truth.

In 1953 and 1954 this committee conducted some rather lengthy hearings, as I recall. Among others, we heard evidence from indi- viduals who had been in the Soviet Union in the early days when the Communists began their unremitting assault upon the church. The testimony showed conclusively that the Communist apparatus early came to the conclusion that if communism was to succeed throughout the world, it would be necessary to destroy or neutralize the great re­ligions of the world.

The Communists knew, and so stated, that it was the church that was one of the greatest obstacles to the eventual take-over of the peoples of the earth by the Communists. The Communists concluded that before people would or could accept the ideology of communism, religion, which they called the opiate of the people and which they said controlled the mass mind, had to be eliminated or neutralized.

The Communists first attempted a frontal assault on the church; they harassed, persecuted, and imprisoned the clergy. Church prop­erties were confiscated and destroyed. The Communist hierarchy, however, soon learned that the frontal assault had failed; that religion and morality were so embedded in the minds and souls of men that this outward assault on the church would not accomplish the objective.

They then realized that they must begin the long and tedious proc­ess of infiltration and gradually neutralize the religious doctrines of the churches from within by subtle propaganda and other devices.

Since the Communists understood that religion was the greatest obstacle to the success of the Communist cause, this committee conse­quently has always recognized and pointed out that our religious in­stitutions are the free world’s greatest bulwark against atheistic, god­less communism. We have, therefore, urged the growth and strength­ening of our religious institutions. All that the committee, by its


work in this field has ever tried to do, is to point out so all may know and understand this basic Communist policy. The committee has tried to show why the church and religion are the focal point of as sault by the Communists.

The Committee on Un-American Activities has uncovered the tech­niques used by the Communist apparatus to infiltrate and destroy the church. It has done this so that the church itself could be fully aware of the Communist offensive against it; so that church leaders could understand that our religious institutions were in the front line of this battle; so that with this knowledge the church would be better enabled to foresee and combat this indirect, subtle, and diabolical attack upon it.

It should be obvious to all from the testimony before our committee that some people in our church organizations, whose loyalty both to this country and the church is unquestioned, have not, and still do not, understand the nature and objective of the Communists, as I have just pointed out. It is unfortunate that some of these good people have been taken in. It is deplorable that many of this group bitterly resent and interpret as an attack upon the church any efforts by this com­mittee to bring to light the nature and techniques of the Communist attempt to infiltrate the church.

If what I have said is true, and I assure you it is, instead of bitterly resenting this committee, these good people should join hand in hand with us in what I believe is, and should be, a mutual objective, namely,


to better understand the nature of the Communist techniques and ob­ectives in so far as religion and the church are concerned and to strengthen our religious institutions so that they can become an even greater bulwark against the most deadly enemy, not only of free men, but also of the church itself.

Mr. JOHANSEN. I just wanted to repeat one statement very briefly and very quickly, and that is that I think that the Air Force and the Defense Department still face their most crucial test in this whole matter and that a great deal can be done to offset any mistakes that were made if that test is met. That test is in paragraph 3 of this resolution, which is an announcement to you that you have got to go farther in any compilation and absolutely ban any reference to Communist efforts to infiltrate religious groups.

I just want to say as a reverse of what my colleague from Cali­fornia said, if that effort is persisted in by them for whatever it is worth, you will have my support in resisting that effort, and it will be given on the floor of the House.

Secretary SHARP. I am sure we will resist any such effort; yes, sir.

Mr. TUCK. Did I understand you to say that this publication was suppressed on account of the letter of Mr. Wine alone, or were there other complaints?

Secretary SHARP. No, sir. It was investigated. This training manual had never been edited at the Headquarters, United States Air Force, and as soon as attention was called to the fact that there were some features in it that were objectionable to the group of people, we investigated the manual, and we recalled it for review at the time because of what we thought were objectionable statements in it which could be misinterpreted and get the Air Force into difficulty.




Mr. TUCK. Then did I understand you to say that you suppressed the manual and withdrew it without investigating to determine whether or not the statements made in that manual were true?

Secretary SHARP. Yes, sir. We were only interested in the fact that we do not feel in the Air Force that in a training manual it is our job to point at specific groups and organizations, that we should point out the danger of communism infiltrating the churches, but we should not point our finger at certain individuals who are suspect or otherwise being connected with Communist organizations. I think that this is the duty of this committee, which it certainly carries out remarkably well, and the duty of the FBI and others.

I think we should point out to our people, however, that there is danger of Communist infiltration even in the churches and schools and the labor unions and almost every other kind of organization of importance in the United States.

Mr. TUCK. But if those statements are true and if the dangers do exist., do you not conceive it to be your duty as head of the Air Force to point out these dangers to the men whom you are training.

Secretary SHARP. I think as I mentioned before, that the matter of getting into testimony before this committee, whether it was accu­rately transcribed in our records, and so on, is an area that we should not get into in the Air Force. We should point out that




there are dangers in the schools, in the churches, in the military organizations of Communist infiltration. But I think for us to point a finger at a particular group is the duty of this committee and other organizations set up for that purpose, rather than the Air Force.

Mr. TUCK. I am not very skilled in the art of warfare and combat, but my understanding from my limited knowledge of the subject is that the first object of successful combat is to identify your enemy. Is that not correct ?

Secretary SHARP. You certainly have to do that.

Mr. TUCK. Do you not as head of the Air Force recognize the danger of infiltration on the part of these Communist forces as one of the most serious problems confronting the Defense Department and the people of America today ?

Secretary SHARP. There is no question. It is an extremely danger­ous area. Of course, our primary area is military defense, and the responsibility of this committee and of the FBI and others involved is with the actual routing out of the Communist movement throughout the country. As far as Communists within the Air Force, this is definitely our job to point them out.

Mr. TUCK. Who were some of the other people who have complained

about this publication prior to the time it was suppressed ? Secretary SHARP. Do you know of any, General HOPWOOD ? General HOPWOOD. None.

Mr. TUCK. Then this sole letter from Mr. Wine was the only corn= plaint?

General HOPWOOD. I withdrew the manual before I ever heard of a man named Wine.

The CHAIRMAN. Why did you apologize to the National Council if you had already withdrawn it? Why didn’t you say, “We have -with­drawn this document” ?


Are there any further questions?

Mr. JACKSON. Again going to the point of giving definite proof of a categorical statement, you do it in the manual in one instance where the manual mentions Reverend Claude C. Williams.

The Reverend Claude C. Williams, on May 17, 1946, in the First Baptist Church, Denver, Colorado, said, and I quote :

“Denominationally I am a Presbyterian, religiously a Unitarian, and politically I am a Communist. I am not preaching to make people good or anything of the sort, I’m in the church because I can reach people easier that way and get them organized for communism.”

I think you might very well pick up that statement, which is a documented statement, and put it in the manual to give the noncom­missioned officers under instruction some idea what your opening statement with respect to infiltration by Communists into the churches means.

Mr. DOYLE. May I ask how many thousands were distributed be­fore you withdrew it ?

General HOPWOOD. Sir, approximately 3,200 were distributed to the training center.

Mr. DOYLE. In the United States ?

General HOPWOOD. In the United States exclusively.

Mr. DOYLE. You cannot possibly get all those back, can you ? General HOPWOOD. No, sir.

We have recovered approximately 80 percent.

Mr. DOYLE. 80 percent.

Mr. TUCK. Mr. Chairman, while these gentlemen are here I would personally like to have a copy of this document and study to see if there is anything in it untruthful.

I cannot see any objection to a member of the Congress, particu­larly a member of this committee, having a few of those documents. The CHAIRMAN. We have a few.

Do you think you could probably dig up about a dozen?

General HOPWOOD. Usually manuals are furnished that are re­quested through liaison, that are requested by members of the Con­gress. The request is acted on quickly.

Mr. SCHERER. Send us nine of them for the members on the com­mittee.

Mr. JOHANSEN. Send both manuals.

The CHAIRMAN. I think you, Mr. Sharp, and Mr. Gates apologized for the manuals telling the truth about Communist infiltration of the National Council of Churches.

What was the apology based on? It was based on Mr. Wine’s desire to suppress the truth about the organization which pays his salary. I cannot help but reach that conclusion.

Secretary SHARP. No, sir.

I would like to say we did not suppress the manual because of the truth or falsity of any of those statements. It was the propriety of the Air Force to enter into this area in detail, as I have discussed many times before. This is the reason for withdrawing the manual4

Mr. TUCK. Mr. Chairman, at the risk of making a curt remark, I think, in the light of the Secretary’s apology to Mr. Wine, it is in order now for him or the Defense Department to apologize to the American people for having made the first apology.




Secretary SHARP. I think we should make it very clear what our position is and why we withdrew the manual. And we have not in the Air Force apologized to Mr. Wine that I know of. We simply stated we withdrew it because it did not represent the opinions of the Air Force.

Mr. DOYLE. I presume your statement will come out rather promptly now.

Secretary SHARP. I guess it will unless you have objection, of the committee, of making it.

The CHAIRMAN. We have no objection at all.Gentlemen, will the members of the committee remain just a min­ute.

(Whereupon, at 11 :45 a.m., Thursday, February 25, 1960, the com­mittee proceeded to other business.)

(Members present at conclusion of the hearing: Representatives Walter, Moulder, Doyle, Willis, Tuck, Jackson, Scherer, and Johan­sen.)




  • Baer, John W 1294
  • Bayne, Carol 1291
  • Bennett, Dave (David) 1292
  • Blumberg, Albert (Emanuel) 1293
  • Bowie, Walter Russell 1297, 1302, 1303
  • Browder, Earl 1301
  • Burnham, Robert F 1294
  • Burrell, 0. E 1290
  • Cadbury, Henry J 1303
  • Clinger, Moiselle (J.) 1290
  • Dahl, George 1303
  • Dahlberg, Edwin T 1295
  • Fineberg, S. Andhil 1288
  • Gates, Thomas S., Jr 1295, 1296, 1298, 1305, 1320
  • Gordon, Alice 1292
  • Hartman, Fanny 1292
  • Healey, Dorothy (Ray) 1290
  • Hoover, Herbert 1301
  • Hoover, J. Edgar 1287, 1298
  • 1 lopwood, Lloyd P 1294, 1296
  • Hutchison, John A. (Jack) 1292, 1293
  • Hyde (Homer H.) 1316
  • James, Fleming 1304
  • Khrushchev, Nikita 1287
  • Lenin (V. I.) 1287
  • Mao, Tse-tung 1290
  • Marx, Karl 1287, 1292
  • Miller, Marion 1291
  • Musgrave, Thomas C., Jr 1294
  • Newsom, Robert 1293
  • Nowak, Joseph S 1291, 1292
  • Patterson, Leonard 1293
  • Persons Wilton B 1296
  • Philbrick, Herbert A 1292
  • Poling, Daniel A 1288
  • Pong, Peter Chu 1289
  • -Reno, Earl (C.) 1292, 1293
  • Ross, Boy G 1295
  • Russell, Richard B 1296
  • Schneider, Anita Bell 1293, 1294
  • Secrest, Lee 1294
  • Sharp, Dudley C 1287, 1288, 1294-1321 (statement)
  • Sheen, Fulton J 1288
  • Vinson, Carl 1296
  • Ward, Harry F 1293, 1304
  • Waterman, Leroy 1304
  • White, Eliot 1301
  • White, Thomas D 1296
  • Williams, Claude C 1301, 1320
  • Wine, James. 1295, 1296, 1299-1301, 1304-1307, 1318-1321
  • Zubek, Theodoric Joseph 1289

Source: http://www.theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/21PbAr/Hst/US/UnAmActv.htm