Non-Military Weapons in Cold-War Offensive

Report Outline
Political Offensive Against Communism
Evidences of Unrest Behind Iron Curtain
Activities of Exile Groups in United States

Political Offensive Against Communism

Proposed Political General Staff for Cold War

Mounting evidence of unrest among peoples behind the Iron Curtain has reinforced demands that the United States, without relaxing the drive to build up military defenses, launch a vigorous non-military offensive to undermine Communist influence and rally the forces of freedom. An indication that the administration may be preparing a move in that direction has been given by reports that President Truman is studying plans for full integration of cold-war activities. Formation of a body in the nature of a political general staff to take over top direction of United States policy in a stepped-up non-military offensive against Communism is believed to be under consideration.

An interdepartmental National Psychological Strategy Board, under the chairmanship of the Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs, was set up in mid-August 1950 to coordinate “foreign information and psychological strategy in situations where joint action by more than one agency of the government is required in this field.” Lately, the President is said to have become dissatisfied with this setup but to have run into a conflict of views between the State Department, which wishes to keep the chief coordinating role, and the Defense Department, which favors a separate coordinating agency. It has been reported that a compromise solution may be found in the appointment of a new Psychological Strategy Board responsible jointly to the State and Defense Departments, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Council, and with a full-time director working under the senior staff of the National Security Council.

Call for Strong Counter Measures Short of War

Although the Voice of America has steadily expanded its “campaign of truth” since the international crisis began to deepen, numerous persons have been insisting that the United States should adopt a more aggressive policy in the non-military struggle with the Kremlin. In a panel discussion at Princeton, Feb. 22, for example, Charles D. Jackson, president of the National Committee for a Free Europe, declared that in psychological warfare truth was not enough; what was needed was money and an attitude of “no holds barred and no questions asked.” William A. Eddy, former U. S. minister to Saudi Arabia and another participant in the Princeton panel, added that “truth, like a virgin, can only work on the right side of the tracks,” and that “there is need of subversive action for the red-light district.”