Chapter IV · WHO IS ATTACKED IN THE MEMORANDUM?

Senator Fulbright’s memorandum attacked a wide variety of Americans, as well as the American people as a whole.

President Eisenhower

In challenging the directive of the National Security Council, Senator Fulbright was saying that in spite of his military background President Eisenhower did not know enough to realize that the military was not qualified to engage in the cold war. Senator Fulbright, however, was qualified—he thought—to judge that the military was not qualified. Furthermore, when Senator Fulbright said that such participation was contrary to certain constitutional values, he was saying that either President Eisenhower did not understand these values or that he chose to disregard them.

The Military

Senator Fulbright’s memorandum was an attack on the competency of the military to engage in the cold war. Concerning the policy of the National Security Council, which put the military into the cold war, the memorandum said: “This policy should be reconsidered from the standpoint of a basic error, that military personnel have the necessarily broad background which would enable them to relate the various aspects of the cold-war effort, one to the other.”⁠[35]⁠

It was also stated: “There is little in the education, training or experience of most military officers to equip them with the balance of judgment necessary to put their own ultimate solutions—those with which their education, training and experience are concerned—into proper perspective in the President’s total ‘strategy for the nuclear age’.”⁠[36]⁠

Furthermore, the Senator said: “There are no reasons to believe that military personnel generally can contribute to this need, beyond their specific, technical competence to explain their own role. On the contrary, there are many reasons, and some evidence, for believing that an effort by the military, beyond this limitation, involves considerable danger.”⁠[37]⁠

Whence did the Senator get his competency in the field of the cold war? Whence his qualifications as a cold war strategist so that he knows that we have much to lose and nothing to gain by having the military in the cold war? How did he become qualified to advise in effect the neutralization, in so far as the public is involved, of the military in the cold war?

Are there any military officials more competent than the Senator is in any phase of the cold war? If so, why not let military experts on Communism be used to help us win the victory in the cold war?

Senator Fulbright’s position, that military officials are not sufficiently educated to engage in the cold war, is an indictment of the armed services colleges where these officers have been trained.

Many of the officers have one or more degrees. Many of them have travelled extensively and some of them are proficient in more than one language.

Senator Styles Bridges expressed his shock at Senator Fulbright’s evaluation of the military. “I assume, and it is an assumption which I believe to be valid, that our senior military officers, particularly those of flag and general officer rank, are persons of judgment and responsibility. Most of these officers are graduates of our Military Academies, and all of them have many years of experience in leadership, many of them are held directly responsible for the welfare and lives of large segments of our military forces, and many of them are held directly chargeable with the care, custody and protection of millions of dollars worth of property belonging to the U. S. Government. The appointment of each of them to a position of high rank was made as an expression of trust and confidence by the President and with the concurrence of the U. S. Senate.”⁠[38] After discussing the education of most of the Army officers, Major John A. Burns wrote: “It is doubtful if any professional group is so rigorously trained and educated as the American officer.”⁠[39]⁠

The Senator recognizes, as do the rest of us, that the United States is confronted by a situation which it has never before faced. The memorandum indicates that it is not in the American tradition to be involved in the “long twilight struggle” which we are now involved in; but we are so involved.⁠[40]⁠

That we are in an unprecedented situation in the history of America, is underscored by the fact that on December 16, 1950, President Truman declared, in Proclamation 2914, that we are in a state of national emergency because of Communist imperialism. Events since that time have only further emphasized that we are in a state of national emergency.⁠[41]⁠

It is not contrary to our tradition for the military to go into action when war comes. War has come.

W. D. Workman wrote: “If warfare today were confined to the battlefield, and if the battlefield alone were the concern of the military, there might be some justification for buttoning the lips of our senior officers. But warfare now is fourth dimensional, encompassing politics, culture, economics and all other institutions which lend themselves to internal subversion as well as external manipulation.”⁠[42]⁠

The Military Oath

Military men have taken an oath to defend the United States against enemies both domestic and foreign. This oath calls on them to defend the country against domestic enemies as well as foreign enemies. Why, then, does Senator Fulbright take a position which in effect keeps the military men from carrying out their oath against such a domestic enemy as the Communist conspiracy in America?

It is in the light of their oath, and of the threat of internal and external communism, that we can fully understand Resolution 99 of the American Legion convention in Denver. It states: “Whereas the morale and fighting spirit of our Armed Forces is directly related to their knowledge and their belief in the fundamental principles upon which the Government of their homeland is founded and to their knowledge and understanding of the aims and purposes of the enemy; and

“Whereas the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and author of ‘Masters of Deceit’, a most knowledgeable work on communism, has stated and warned, ‘We cannot hope to successfully meet the Communist menace unless there is a wide knowledge and understanding of its aims and designs’, and

“Whereas, Lenin, the real architect of communism, proclaimed, ‘It is inconceivable that communism and democracy can exist side by side in this world.’ Lenin said inevitably we must perish; and

“Whereas this doctrine has been iterated and reiterated many times by his successors, and their actions have consistently been in conformity therewith; and

“Whereas the military officers of the U. S. Armed Forces are charged under oath with the duty to defend our country from all enemies foreign and domestic and that to accomplish fealty to this oath, the military leaders must know the enemy—his aims and purposes in order to instruct the men under their command, fortify their morale, and so defend our homeland against the enemy; and

“Whereas this right and duty of the military officers of the U. S. Armed Forces has recently been challenged publicly by certain officials in high places in Government: Now, therefore, be it

“Resolved, That the American Legion in convention assembled in Denver, Colo., September 9 through 14, 1961, urge the officers of the U. S. Armed Forces to continue to perform their duty to defend the Constitution of the United States, that they better inform themselves regarding the fundamental principles of our form of government exemplified by our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, that they transmit and impart this knowledge to the Armed Forces under their command and to the general public, that the officers of our Armed Forces familiarize themselves with the aims and purposes of the known enemy, that they earnestly and patriotically strive at all times to impart this knowledge to the men under their command and to the general public to the end that the morale and fighting spirit of our Armed Forces be kept at all times at the highest possible level. We further urge that the challenge of certain Government officials in high places to the established rights and duties of the officers of our Armed Forces be removed and that they be left unshackled and unhampered in the discharge of their duties to the above end.”⁠[43]⁠

Does the Senator think that the only way that the military can live up to its oath is by bullets in a hot war, and not also by words in a cold war? The oath does not say that the defense of the United States is limited to defense by bullets. To uphold the United States includes upholding it by word also. Or does the Senator, with his attitude toward at least some aspects of our constitutional system, think that if one upholds the Constitution by the teaching method that he is engaging in partisan politics?

If it is not a violation of their oath to defend the Constitution by words against the domestic enemy communism, if they can in harmony with their oath expose and oppose the domestic enemy communism, then why not let them participate in the cold war?

Is not the memorandum, in effect, a demand that the military not carry out their oath in so far as domestic Communists are concerned, which domestic Communists are a part of the international communist threat?

The Senator in effect wants the military eliminated from the cold war. As Senator Curtis, from Nebraska, said: “If this paper were devoted to errors of judgment or fact—which are going to creep into any program—everybody should consider those errors so that they might not be repeated or that they might be corrected. But the purport of this memorandum is plain—it is a pronouncement that the military should not alert the citizens of the internal Communist threat. I am afraid it serves interests that were never intended to be served by whoever had the responsibility of putting the memorandum together.”⁠[44]⁠

We would add the observation that there is no indication that Senator Fulbright in the memorandum proposed that the military officials should alert even their own troops to the menace and nature of the cold war except possibly later when some of them have been educated by civilians. And even then he says it should be done under civilian direction as far as possible.

The Senator does not seem to want the military to have the right to speak out against internal communism, or to inform the public of the dangers which threaten us or to show how the Communists operate.

We are confident that, regardless of the Senator’s motives, Khrushchev must be pleased with the idea of the military being so neutralized in the cold war. Since the cold war is the major war which Khrushchev and world communism are now waging against us, Khrushchev must consider it to be a real victory for his side to have the military forces knocked out of the cold war to the extent that the memorandum knocked the military out of the cold war.

We would have little or no hope for the survival of our country if the military did not have greater confidence in America than the Senator seems to have in the military. Indeed, the Senator himself once said: “If we lose faith in the integrity of our military men, in addition to the criticism which has been heaped upon the leadership in the political field, we certainly are in a sad state.”⁠[45]⁠

We are afraid that under the influence of Senator Fulbright’s memorandum concerning the military, and the increased power which the Secretary of Defense is wielding over the statements of the military, that a situation is developing which a few years ago the Senator himself thought would be a serious condition indeed. Senator Taft had criticized the Chiefs of Staff because he thought that they were but rubber stamps for the administration. Taft said: “I accepted them as experts; but I have come to the point where I do not accept them as experts, particularly when General Bradley makes a foreign policy speech. I suggest to the Senator that the Joint Chiefs of Staff are absolutely under the control of the administration, and that their recommendations are what the administration demands that they make.

“Mr. Fulbright. Mr. President, I think that is a very serious charge which is made by the Senator from Ohio. I can think of nothing which is more likely to cause consternation in this country, to develop a fear which I believe the facts do not warrant, and generally to disrupt our effort in this great struggle with the Russians and with communism, than to state here that in effect he has no confidence in the integrity of the leading military figures in our Government. I think it is a very sad state in which we find ourselves if we are led to such extreme views.”⁠[46] Yet in 1960, Senator Fulbright praised an article which said, among other things, that in President Eisenhower’s administration “uniformity of viewpoint is virtually enforced.”⁠[47]⁠

If the military is not permitted to speak out on the issues of the cold war, if they must silently wait until the time comes for them to rubber stamp whatever program the President finally comes up with, one would have the situation which Taft had in mind, i.e. they would recommend whatever the administration demanded. And this they would do without having had the opportunity to have participated in public discussions before the program was arrived at.

General MacArthur Attacked

The Senator smeared one of the greatest generals in the history of America, and included him as a sample of the attitude of rightwing extremism. Of MacArthur, who was born in Arkansas, the Senator said: “Pride in victory, and frustration in restraint, during the Korean war, led to MacArthur’s revolt and McCarthyism.”⁠[48]⁠

Surely the Senator must have at least hesitated before impugning the motives of General MacArthur. Although it would be a good thing for us to win the victory over communism, pride in victory is not the motive. The important things are for what one is fighting and against what one is fighting. The desire to win victory over communism is highly commendable. Was the General motivated by pride in victory or by love of country, love of freedom and by opposition to this tremendous evil which would enslave mankind? In our opinion, the Senator’s evaluation of the General is a reflection on the Senator instead of on the General. We do not believe that the General’s long life of service to his country gives us any reason for believing that “pride in victory” is a correct analysis. The Senator was judging motives.

In another place, the Senator has said: “This technique of questioning the motives of the opposition instead of arguing about the wisdom of their views is one of the oldest and most effective tools of tyrants or demagogues.” He went on to say that one could question his judgment and intellect, but “I do object to their questioning my motives or purposes or loyalty.”⁠[49] And yet, the Senator questioned the motives of the General and said that the General acted out of “pride in victory.”

As for the General being frustrated under restraint, it likely would have been frustrating to any soldier to have been ordered into a war in which the main enemy—the Chinese Communists—was permitted a privileged sanctuary beyond the Yalu River. Furthermore, it was a war which the General was not permitted to try to win. Would the Senator be frustrated if he was ordered into a political campaign which he would not be permitted—by those who ordered him into it—to win? How much more so when one wanted to win against communism and for the cause of freedom.

The term “McCarthyism” is used as a smear word, and by thus equating “MacArthur’s revolt” and “McCarthyism” was the Senator unconscious of the fact that in the minds of some a bit, at least, of the smear would rub off on the General?

We contrast the Senator’s views of MacArthur with that of General Carlos P. Romulo, the Ambassador to the United States from the Philippines.

“Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s sentimental journey to the Philippines has a fourfold significance:

“1. At a time when Soviet propaganda is sparing no effort to distort America’s image in the eyes of the peoples of Asia, General MacArthur’s personality emerges as a living refutation of Communist misrepresentations. Received by an Asian people with open arms and given a reception that in warmth and magnitude is unprecedented in that section of the globe, the American people should be proud that they have one of their own who can draw to his person and to his country such universal popular acclaim and admiration.”⁠[50]⁠

MacArthur’s wisdom concerning China, in contract with the illusions of the civilian authorities who then formed policy, is illustrated in his cable to the House Foreign Affairs Committee around the early part of 1948.

“The international aspect of the Chinese problem, unfortunately, has become somewhat beclouded by demands for internal reform. Desirable as such reform may be, its importance is but secondary to the issue of civil strife now engulfing the land, and these two issues are as impossible of synchronization as it would be to alter the structural design of a house while the same was being consumed by flame. The maintenance of China’s integrity against destructive forces which threaten her engulfment is of infinitely more concern. For with the firm maintenance of such integrity, reform will gradually take place in the evolutionary processes of China’s future.

“The Chinese problem is part of a global situation which should be considered in its entirely. Fragmentary decisions in disconnected sectors of the world will not bring an integrated solution. It would be utterly fallacious to underrate either China’s needs or her importance. For if we embark upon a general policy to bulwark the frontiers of freedom against the assaults of political despotism, one major frontier is no less important than another, and a decisive breach of any will inevitably engulf all.”⁠[51]⁠

When he was a Congressman, President Kennedy also spoke of some of the illusions of civilian authorities concerning China. “Mr. Speaker, over this week end we have learned the extent of the disaster that has befallen China and the United States. The responsibility for the failure of our foreign policy in the Far East rests squarely with the White House and the Department of State.

“The continued insistence that aid would not be forthcoming, unless a coalition government with the Communists was formed, was a crippling blow to the National Government.

“So concerned were our diplomats and their advisers, the Lattimores and the Fairbanks, with the imperfection of the domestic system in China after 20 years of war and the tales of corruption in high places that they lost sight of our tremendous stake in a non-Communist China.

“Our policy in the words of the Premier of the National Government, Sun Fo, of vacillation, uncertainty, and confusion has reaped the whirlwind.

“This House must now assume the responsibility of preventing the onrushing tide of communism from engulfing all of Asia.”⁠[52]⁠

We wonder whether or not Senator Fulbright would have lectured this Congressman on the need to support the President’s total program, that criticism of this nature divides the country, that this is extremely radical rightwingism, etc.!!

We are glad that President Kennedy’s visits with General MacArthur indicate that he has a higher regard for the General than does Senator Fulbright. The Senator’s opinion of General MacArthur is also in contrast with that of the House of Representatives in their resolution in which the Senate also concurred. “Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That the thanks and appreciation of the Congress and the American people are hereby tendered to General of the Army Douglas MacArthur in recognition of his outstanding devotion to the American people, his brilliant leadership during and following World War II, and the unsurpassed affection held for him by the people of the Republic of the Philippines which has done so much to strengthen the ties of friendship between the people of that nation and the people of the United States.”⁠[53]⁠

The American People Attacked

Senator Fulbright not only indicted General MacArthur, but also the American people. Thus we read: “The American people have never really been tested in such a struggle. In the long run, it is quite possible that the principle problem of leadership will be, if it is not already, to restrain the desire of the people to hit the Communists with everything we’ve got, particularly if there are more Cubas and Laos. Pride in victory, and frustration in restraint, during the Korean war, led to MacArthur’s revolt and McCarthyism.”⁠[54]⁠

Is the Senator saying that the American people may revolt if they are restrained so much that they are not permitted, as MacArthur was not permitted, to win the struggle in which the Communists have engaged us?

This, incidentally, is the first time that we have known that the Senator had such a charitable interpretation of McCarthyism. In effect the memorandum is saying that the American people want to win the victory over communism in the struggle which is now going on in the world; and that when they are restrained and kept from this victory, McCarthyism is the result. McCarthyism, according to this, is the desire to break down the restraints which keep us from winning, and the desire to go on to win the victory over the evil forces of communism. This, in effect, is what the Senator said.

The American people will doubtless weigh well the Senator’s implication that they possess the two essential ingredients which, according to the Senator lead to McCarthyism. These two are: Pride in victory and frustration in restraint. In other words, the Senator believes that we are all potential or incipient McCarthyites. There is no reason to assume that the Senator meant this in any complimentary way.

Dr. Benson⁠[55]⁠

Senator Fulbright included Dr. George S. Benson, Arkansan of the Year for 1953-1954, President of Harding College and President of the National Education Program, as one of the extremely radical rightwing speakers. Dr. Benson believes in and advocates the religious and moral principles on which this country was founded; constitutional and thus limited government; citizenship responsibility; free enterprise and freedom. He is against both the internal and external threat of communism, which are two aspects of the same threat—international communism.

Does adherence to the traditional values on which America has been built, and which has made America great, make one an extremely radical rightwinger? If it does, what does Senator Fulbright’s classification of Dr. Benson reveal about Senator Fulbright’s stand? Is the Senator so far away from the positions that Dr. Benson advocates that the Senator thinks that Dr. Benson is an extremely radical rightwinger?

It would be educational for all concerned if Senator Fulbright would make an attempt to sustain his charge against Dr. Benson by listing, with documentation from Dr. Benson’s writings and speeches, those positions which the Senator believes prove that Dr. Benson is an extremely radical rightwing speaker. Assertions are not sufficient. The Senator’s charges, where the Senator has much influence, are damaging to Dr. Benson’s work for free enterprise and against communism. They should either be sustained or the Senator should withdraw them publicly.

Dr. Clifton L. Ganus, Jr.

In his secret memorandum Senator Fulbright passed on, without checking with Dr. Ganus, a misrepresentation of Dr. Ganus. Senator Fulbright’s memorandum said: “An Arkansas citizen wrote of the Fort Smith meeting: ‘Dr. Clifton L. Ganus, Jr., vice president and dean of the School of American Studies at Harding College, made the statement “your Representative (James W. Trimble) in this area has voted 89 percent of the time to aid and abet the Communist Party”’.”⁠[56]⁠

Dr. Ganus did not make this statement.⁠[57] If he had made such a startling statement, surely it would have been picked up by the newspapers at that time and reported. However, as far as we know even the Arkansas Gazette did not refer to it until months later. This was after it had been published in the Reporter magazine—which magazine presented this false accusation without any effort to check it with Dr. Ganus. As far as I know, the first time this false accusation appeared in print was in the July 20, 1961 issue of the Reporter, which was published at least a week earlier than July 20.⁠[58]⁠

It is also instructive that Perry Mason of Harding Academy spoke in Fort Smith several times, and to some of the same people, a few days after Dr. Ganus spoke. Although he received some questions concerning some points made in Dr. Ganus’ speech, no one either publicly or privately said anything about the statement later attributed to Dr. Ganus.

If Dr. Ganus had made such a preposterous statement, surely someone would have defended their Congressman right then and there.

Furthermore, several people have made out affidavits, and have testified that they were there and that Dr. Ganus did not make the statement attributed to him.⁠[59]⁠

Harding College

Because it has won for ten straight years the highest award of Freedoms Foundation At Valley Forge, Harding College, a fully accredited educational institution, has been known as the nation’s most honored college. Freedoms Foundation has honored Harding College as the nation’s No. 1 school in promoting the American way of life. On February 9, 1962, the All-American Conference to Combat Communism, made up of organizations whose combined membership is well over 50,000,000, gave Harding College a citation.

The socialists have felt the impact of the College in its stand for the traditional free enterprise system in America. This helps explain the attack of Norman Thomas, the leading socialist in America, on the College early in 1961.

The Communists have recognized that the College is a bulwark against their designs on America, and thus they have attacked Harding College and have falsely accused it of being “one of the biggest political machines of the ultra-Right.”⁠[60] This attack by the Communists is in reality a tribute to Harding College. The Communists know who is hurting them.

However, it must come as something of a shock that Senator Fulbright from the State of Arkansas, should also attack Harding College as a source of extremely radical rightwing teaching. And yet, this is the label under which he secretly represented Harding College to the President of the United States and to the Secretary of Defense.⁠[61] Harding College, located in the Senator’s home state, was the only college attacked in the memorandum.

Chamber of Commerce

Senator Fulbright’s memorandum regarded the Strategy for Survival Conferences as dominated by the extremely rightwing speakers.⁠[62] The Chamber of Commerce had sponsored this Conference. Thus the Chamber of Commerce was involved in extreme rightwingism! It is of interest that the Chamber of Commerce had tried to get Senator Fulbright, but he was out of the country; and then Senator McClellan, and he was also unavailable. It was then that they got Dr. Ganus.⁠[63]⁠

The memorandum also stated that General William C. Bullock had personally persuaded the Chamber of Commerce to sponsor the Conference in Little Rock. Peyton Rice, who is chairman of the Chamber’s Armed Services Committee, said that General Bullock had not presented the proposal to the Chamber.⁠[64]⁠

House Committee

The House Committee on Un-American Activities has not been perfect, but neither has any other Committee. However, on the whole it has done splendid work investigating and exposing the Communist conspiracy. If Senator Fulbright had listened to the evidence presented in just the 1938 hearings of the Committee, he would have learned much truth about communism. He would not have said in 1945 that “our fear of Russia and communism” is a “powerful prejudice” which we must give up in order to have peace. He would not have misread history and concluded that Lenin’s revolution was in any sense a following of our example in the revolution which we fought for our independence. The Senator also said: “As I read history, the Russian experiment in socialism is scarcely more radical, under modern conditions, than the Declaration of Independence was in the days of George III.”⁠[65] This sounds somewhat like the statement of Earl Browder when he was head of the Communist Party in America. “The Declaration of Independence was for that time what The Communist Manifesto is for ours.”⁠[66] Lenin in his resolution was basically following the Communist Manifesto.

As a Rhodes scholar, Senator Fulbright should have been able to read history, instead of accepting such an obviously false view of history. Senator Fulbright seems to have known either little or nothing about Lenin’s revolution, or little or nothing about our revolution. The kindest thing we can say about the Senator is that he was seemingly ignorant of some very fundamental matters.

What are some of the differences between Lenin’s revolution and ours? (1) Our revolution had as its objective the establishment of a reign of law, but Lenin’s revolution was designed to establish the rule of the head of the Communist Party who would rule according to his own will. (2) Our revolution established a Republic, while Lenin’s established a dictatorship. (3) Our revolution did not result in a reign of terror of Americans over Americans, but Lenin’s revolution did establish a reign of terror. (4) Our revolution did not have as its aim the establishment of a world wide conspiracy which would endeavor to overthrow all other governments—democratic governments as well as dictatorships. (5) Our revolution was not a counter-revolution against self-government. Lenin did not overthrow the Czar, he overthrew the Kerensky Government which was endeavoring to establish a form of democracy. Lenin was not even in Russia at the time the Czar abdicated. (6) Our revolution was over in a very few years, in so far as establishing our form of government is concerned. How long does it take to overthrow the previous regime? As Kravchenko said “The French Terror was over in five years.”⁠[67] By 1945, when Senator Fulbright made his statement concerning Lenin’s revolution, the Soviet terror had been going on for almost thirty years. (7) The Communist revolution was not just a revolution in government. It was a revolt against God, religion, morals and humanity. Its aim has been, and is, to create a godless society and the new Soviet man.

All of these things could have been known by Senator Fulbright in 1945 and long before. Communist books and actions had made abundantly clear the nature of their revolution. Only a “powerful prejudice” could keep a reader of their history from knowing the nature of Lenin’s revolution.

Also in 1945 the Senator was seemingly so misinformed about Communism that he said: “I do not believe the Soviets desire to dominate the world as the Germans did.”⁠[68] Before Hitler came to power the Soviets made clear their desire to rule the world. And their actions showed that they meant it. The House Committee had pointed this out. So had many individuals.

Senator Fulbright’s “powerful prejudice,” or whatever it was, against the House Committee, however, is such that he objected because in one of the meetings mentioned in the memorandum, someone defended the House Committee.⁠[69] Such a defense could hardly be called a matter of partisan politics, since the House has supported the Committee for years, and in 1961 the vote to give the Committee its full appropriation was passed 412 to 6.⁠[70]⁠

“Operation Abolition”

The memorandum classified “Operation Abolition” as objectionable material. Did the Senator want to censor this film? Is he a “film burner”? Does he think that J. Edgar Hoover and the House Committee were wrong in saying that the San Francisco riots were Communist inspired, and that most of the young people were duped?⁠[71]⁠

Herbert A. Philbrick

Herbert A. Philbrick, of “I Led Three Lives” fame, was smeared by Senator Fulbright as being an extremely radical rightwing speaker.⁠[72] Philbrick spent nine years as a counterspy for the FBI and for America. He was commended by J. Edgar Hoover.⁠[73] Philbrick has continued to fight Communism. He has sacrificed much to do so. The Communists have smeared him. And Senator Fulbright, without giving one shred of documentation, smeared Philbrick. The Senator must be very, very far to the left of Mr. Philbrick if from where the Senator is standing, Philbrick looks to him like an extremely radical rightwinger.

Dr. Fred Schwarz

Billy Graham found good reason to commend the anti-communist work of Dr. Fred Schwarz,⁠[74] and Life Magazine in an unprecedented action on Oct. 17, 1961, apologized to Dr. Schwarz for their misinterpretation of him and his work.⁠[75] But Senator Fulbright has never apologized for accusing, without giving one bit of proof, Dr. Schwarz of being an extremely radical rightwinger. The Senator made this charge in his secret memorandum, and without giving Dr. Schwarz an opportunity to answer the accusation. Did the Senator wish to remain a “faceless” accuser?

Dr. Frank Barnett

Dr. Frank Barnett, who was criticized more than once in the memorandum,⁠[76] has been commended by Secretary of Defense McNamara in September, 1961 for an “excellent speech”⁠[77] which contained some of the ideas which Fulbright’s memorandum condemns.⁠[78]⁠

The Institute for American Strategy

As late as April 10, 1961, a National Military-Industrial Conference sponsored by the Institute was commended by President Kennedy.⁠[79] These Conferences were criticized in the memorandum.⁠[80]⁠

American Strategy for the Nuclear Age

The Institute for American Strategy sponsored a book which was prepared by the Foreign Policy Research Institute of the University of Pennsylvania. This book is called American Strategy for the Nuclear Age. The memorandum criticized this book and said that “its total effect can be said to be contrary to the President’s program.”⁠[81] The book, among other things, brings out that the communists are at war with us on many different levels, and that we ought to fight back and win. Is this against the President’s program?

Among the contributors to the book are: J. Edgar Hoover, Hanson W. Baldwin, Henry A. Kissinger, Lieut. General Arthur G. Trudeau, Walt W. Rostow, Dean Acheson and David Sarnoff.

233 Talks

One Captain was mentioned in the memorandum as having given 233 talks to civilians on the “dangers of internal communism.” As I do not know what the Captain said, I do not know to what extent I would agree or disagree with him. But the fact that he gave 233 talks is not within itself a criticism. In fact, it shows that he was very zealous in carrying out his oath to defend America against domestic enemies.

The Senator made at least seventy-five talks in Arkansas in the fall of 1961, in the interest of his re-election to office.⁠[82] Doubtless he will make other such talks. A man who is that zealous in behalf of his own re-election to office ought not to be critical of a Captain for making so many speeches for America and against the internal enemy—who is also an external enemy—communism.

FOOTNOTES: