Mr. FENICHEL. I refuse to answer for the same reason.

Chairman JENNER. The day before?

Mr. FENICHEL. The same.

Chairman JENNER. Two minutes before?

Mr. FENICHEL. The same.

Chairman JENNER. Before you held up your hand to take your oath, were you a member of the Communist Party?

Mr. FENICHEL. I refuse to answer for the same reason. (H., p. 1588.)

He testified that he was a former member of the executive board of the Communist-dominated New York Teachers' Union. He refused to say whether he had attended Communist Party meetings with other members of the Board (H., p. 1590).

Mr. CARPENTER. Did you at any time make your Communist record known to the Army authorities?

Mr. FENICHEL. I refuse to answer ***. (H., p. 1592.)

The subcommittee's record shows that the teachers' union had been fully exposed as a Communist instrument long before Carl Fenichel of its executive board was summoned to I. and E. headquarters. In view of this fact, there is the clearest implication that Carl Fenichel was brought to join Luke Wilson, Stephen Fischer, and Julius Schreiber at I. and E. headquarters for the specific purpose of aiding the Communist cause.

HOW THEY LOOKED TO A QUALIFIED OBSERVER

Daniel James, a writer, was a second lieutenant, working under Schreiber at Washington. He also served in I. and E.'s New York office. James testified that he had "always opposed communism and any other form of totalitarianism."

He told of a lecture that Major Schreiber delivered to officers at the Pentagon as part of his duty, during the course of which he used a chart setting forth the structure of the Soviet Government.

Mr. JAMES. The intent and purport of that lecture, in my opinion, at that time, was to attempt to portray the Soviet Government, the Soviet State, as democratic. The chart consisted of a breakdown of the various organs of the Soviet State. Mr. CARPENTER. This was to a group of officers, did you say?

Mr. JAMES. This was to a group of officers in the War Department.

Mr. CARPENTER. What were their ranks?

Mr. JAMES. *** I would say there was a good sprinkling of colonels, majors, captains, and lieutenants. I don't recall having seen any generals there, but there may have been (H., pp. 1623-1624).

Mr. JAMES. The nature of my work in the New York office was to participate in the writing and publication of the Army weekly discussion guide called Army Talk.

Mr. CARPENTER. *** How were you accepted among those who were working both in the Washington office and the New York office?

Mr. JAMES. I would say that when I got to New York I very early discovered that I was not a member of the group that seemed to be running the show. That is to say it became clear to me that there were a number of individuals in the branch who operated as a sort of clique working together.

Mr. CARPENTER. In other words, in that clique they had enlisted men, did they not?

Mr. JAMES. Yes, they did.

Mr. CARPENTER. And those enlisted men rated more favor than you as an officer, and their counsel was accepted more readily than your recommendations?

Mr. JAMES. Well, there were any number of what you might call closed discussions that went on between members of this group, among the members of this group, from which just about everyone of us in the office outside the group was excluded. There were other officers there, too, and other enlisted personnel. They also were excluded.

I want it clearly understood, Mr. Counsel, that this was distinctly an impression I got. It is a very intangible thing, something that is difficult to put your fingers on.

Mr. CARPENTER. Can you give the names of those people who seemed to be in the clique?

Mr. JAMES. I know that frequently Major Schreiber would come up to New York and go into a huddle with Forstenzer, Hyman Forstenzer, and Carl Fenichel, particularly. I think possibly on one or more occasions Stephen Fischer was usually consulted. I better strike out "usually," since perhaps it was just a few occasions.

That would be about it. They would have these discussions. They would go into one of the smaller offices in our establishment. Of course, I had no idea what they were talking about, but it was quite obvious that the rest of the office was excluded from these discussions (H., pp. 1624, 1625).

Mr. CARPENTER. From this installation in New York there were certain individuals selected from the New York office to travel throughout the United States to the various camps and stations in order to carry out the work of the I. and E.?

Mr. JAMES. That is correct.

Mr. CARPENTER. Were you ever included on any of those trips?

Mr. JAMES. I was included on only 1 inspection trip to Atlantic City and Fort Monmouth, which covered a period of perhaps 2 or 3 days. I was once scheduled to go on a trip to Texas, but for some unaccountable reason that was canceled. However, Forstenzer and Fenichel and other individuals in the office were frequently en route to some post or camp to give indoctrination courses and run orientation schools and so on.

Mr. CARPENTER. They were the ones who belonged to this particular clique? Mr. JAMES. That is right.

I might add, Mr. Counsel, if I may, that I was not the only one so excluded to the best of my knowledge.

*

Mr. CARPENTER. Did you ever have a discussion with Forstenzer?

Mr. JAMES. Well, on one particular occasion I was about to relate, we went to lunch together and had a rather lengthy discussion of the nature of communism and the structure of the international Communist movement. I exhibited a good deal of curiosity as to why the Communist Parties of the various countries of the world always seemed to act together, in concert, and I put the question to Forstenzer of whether or not there wasn't some central direction that would explain why all of these parties usually thought and acted alike. It was his opinion that they did so because they came to the same conclusions independently. That, I may add, is a favorite phrase that is used in Communist circles (H., pp. 1625–1626).

Mr. James' recollections speak for themselves in the light of the documents already cited, plus the testimony-or nontestimony-of those who hid in the silence afforded by the fifth amendment.

GERSON, FAXON, SVENCHANSKY, AND GANDALL

The quality of the pro-Communist material produced for worldwide distribution, and the character of those at the top who produced it, made unnecessary a widespread survey of I. and E. at the lower levels. However, as in the cases of Camp Crowder and Camp Pickett,

•Forstenzer appeared in executive session and denied that he was a member of the Communist Party.

the subcommittee took samplings. The results of these samplings were what might have been expected. They may best be illustrated by the fact that one Simon W. Gerson was assigned in 1945 to I. and E. work at the important convalescent center at Camp Upton, N. Y.

As the record shows, Gerson had been an open and notorious Communist careerist for at least 17 years before his assignment. At one time, he was city editor for the Daily Worker, official mouthpiece of the Communist Party.

On November 21, 1929, according to an article in the Daily Worker, he openly proclaimed "the correctness of the new line of our party as laid down by the Sixth World Congress of the Communist Înternational." About a year before this he was arrested in a Communist demonstration outside the Brooklyn Navy Yard (H., pp. 1602-1604). He is presently legislative chairman of the New York Communist Party.

Walter L. Kirschenbaum, who was at Camp Upton simultaneously with Gerson, submitted a sworn statement describing Gerson's conduct.

I recall only twice-although there might have been other times-when the Communist line was injected into our work. One time when we were instructed by Gerson, who apparently was guided by Army Talks, that we tell the GI's who came to our classes to be re-created into enlightened civilians that the Chinese in the north who were stirring at that moment were "agrarian reformers, like Jefferson." I had known Mao Tse-tung's record from reading Comintern material and I recall raising the issue privately with Gerson * ** (H., p. 1600).

*It was then that he asked "What is your background anyway?" I do not recall my precise answer, but it stirred suspicion in Gerson's mind. On another occasion, during an Information Please type program, GI's were asked this question: "Who is the labor leader who is urging that all GI's be brought home from the Pacific?" There was a pause of silence. "Come, come," Gerson exhorted, "let's not burn our Bridges until we come to them. Let's not burn our Bridges." Obviously the winner had the name of Harry Bridges on his lips (H., p. 1601).

Harry Bridges, of course, is the notorious west coast labor leader who has been identified many times as a Communist.

Besides Gerson, other I. and E. personnel included George A. Faxon, Alexander Svenchansky, and William Gandall.

Faxon worked for I. and E. at the Pentagon in Washington as well as at many other installations both in the United States and Europe. He was a Boston school teacher who invoked the fifth amendment regarding his Communist activities when testifying before the subcommittee during our education hearings (Ed. H., pp. 681-684).

Svenchansky, another fifth amendment case, was an I. and E. officer in Alaska and Montana, at stopping points for airplanes on their way to and from the U. S. S. R. Before he entered the Army, Svenchansky was employed by the Amtorg Trading Corp. which is an official agency of the Soviet Government (U. N. H., pp. 666–679).

Gandall, another who invoked the fifth amendment, was with I. and E. at Marbury Hall in England. Like Gerson, Gandall was also a well-known Communist agitator. He characterized himself in the following exchange:

Mr. CARPENTER. Did you ever get any instructions in dynamiting, espionage, by representatives of the Soviet military forces?

9 Gandall was also a veteran of the International Brigade which served in the Spanish civil war. As pointed out above, Mr. Khokhlov testified that it was the practice of the Soviet MGB to use veterans of the Spanish civil war in terroristic activity.

The CHAIRMAN. Let the record again show the witness confers with counsel before responding to the question.

(Witness conferred with counsel.)

Mr. GANDALL. I refuse to answer for the reason I gave before (H., p. 1633).

IPR AGAIN

Another part of the I. and E. equipment was a "Prospectus ASF Troop Training Orientation Program," designed for instructors. Among other things, it contained a list of 39 books which were recommended to the troops as basic reading. Twenty-two of the 39 were published by the Institute of Pacific Relations. Two hundred and thirty thousand copies of these IPR volumes were purchased by the Army for distribution at installations throughout the world (IPR, H. pp. 1520-1522).

In our report on IPR, the subcommittee said:

The IPR has been considered by the American Communist Party and by Soviet officials as an instrument of Communist policy, propaganda, and military intelligence.

The IPR disseminated and sought to popularize false information including information originating from Soviet and Communist sources.

The IPR was a vehicle used by the Communists to orientate American Far Eastern policies toward Communist objectives.

Many of the persons active in and around the IPR, and in particular though not exclusively Owen Lattimore, Edward C. Carter, Frederick V. Field, T. A. Bisson, Lawrence K. Rosinger, and Maxwell Stewart, knowingly and deliberately used the language of books and articles which they wrote or edited in an attempt to influence the American public by means of pro-Communist or pro-Soviet content of such writings (IPR, R., pp. 223–225).

Lawrence Rosinger was identified as a member of the Communist Party during the IPR hearings. When questioned about this accusation, he invoked the fifth amendment against self-incrimination (IPR, R., p. 156). China's Wartime Policies, by Lawrence Rosinger was among I. and E.'s 22 IPR recommendations.

Maxwell Stewart was another IPR author who "knowingly and deliberately used the language of books and articles" for "pro-Communist" or "pro-Soviet" purposes (IPR, R., p. 225). Wartime China, by Maxwell Stewart, was one of I. and E.'s 22.

Miriam S. Farley was for years a key figure in IPR. After the Japanese surrender, she was sent to General MacArthur's headquarters in Tokyo. In a letter describing her position, she said: "I've been put to work doing the political section of MacArthur's monthly report. There will be a certain sporting interest in seeing how much I can get by with" (IPR, H., p. 395). Speaking of India, by Miriam S. Farley, was another of the I. and E. 22.

Kate Mitchell was one of those arrested in the Amerasia case in connection with the theft of 1,700 Government documents. She was

also a member of IPR's inner ring. Both she and Kumar Goshal were identified as members of the Communist Party (IPR, R., p. 156). Twentieth Century India, by Mitchell and Goshal was included in the 22 I. and E. titles.

Frederick V. Field, one of the most important influences in IPR throughout the crucial years in its history, was identified as a Communist Party member. He was also a writer for the Daily Worker, official organ of the party. He is, or was, a registered agent of China's Communist government. In answer to all questions about his Communist activities, he invoked the fifth amendment (IPR, R., pp. 153154). Field instigated an IPR pamphlet, Our Job in the Pacific, which was drafted by Eleanor Lattimore, though it was published under the signature of then Vice President Henry A. Wallace (IPR, H., pp. 937 ff., 1297 ff.). Our Job in the Pacific was one more of the I. and E. 22.

All this establishes the open and visible connection between I. and E. and IPR. There is a possibility that there may also have been a connection beneath the surface. Attention is called to the passage quoted above from Army Talk 66, Our Ally China:

*** When we speak of the Chinese "Communists," we should remember that many competent observers say that they stand for something very different from what we ordinarily intend when we use the word "Communist." In the first place, unlike Communists of the orthodox type, they believe in the rights of private property and private enterprise. Their chief interest at present is to improve the economic position of China's farmers *** (Army Talk 66).

In 1946, Eleanor Lattimore published a pamphlet, China Yesterday and Today, which contained the following passage:

When we speak of the Chinese Communists, we should remember that they stand for something rather different from what is ordinarily meant by the word "Communist." They are not advocating the Russian system for China, and, unlike the Russians, they maintain the rights of private property and enterprise in the areas under their control. Because their chief interest at the moment is in improving the economic conditions of the Chinese farmer and in increasing the number of people capable of taking part in political life, they are often described as a peasant party (IPR, R., pp. 208, 209).

The similarity between this language and the language in Army Talk 66 if it is a coincidence, is a remarkable one.

THE VICTIMS

The subcommittee did not attempt to survey comprehensively the activities of I. and E. at the point where it reached the soldiers themselves in camps, hospitals, and embarkation points. However, we did take a few samplings. It was hardly surprising to discover that the line handed down from the top was faithfully adhered to and even "fattened up" in the lower echelons.

Capt. John Kenneth Kerr, who was a captain in the Counterintelligence Corps and Chief of the Investigations Branch of the Third Service Command, told of an investigation he undertook at Camp Picket, Va., in August of 1945. He learned of a mimeographed publication which was being circulated among the men on the post. Its title was The GI Plan for Postwar America. The record shows that it contained proposals which were crucially advantageous to the Soviet cause at that time.