- 3 -

trouble. Neither the federal government nor state governments are in
a position to "regulate" universities. Any effort to do so will create
problems of such an order that any temporary political advantage will
be quickly eradicated; new and more serious disturbances will erupt.
While every historic analogy is hazardous, Edmund Burke's warning to
the British Parliament against trying to impose certain constraints on
the American colonists might be read with profit by anyone considering
ways of regulating universities.

The loss of public confidence in the universities is great; every
effort must be made to restore that confidence. If it is not restored,
three major threats will follow: first, the perpetuation of a kind of
political conflict between the generations that could have serious
social consequences; second, the prospect of new pressures on govern-
ment to regulate the universities when there is little precedent for
such regulation and even less experience with it; finally, the under-
mining of the financial stability of many universities, including
several of the finest.

The American university is not just another American institution,
like any other; its growth and development, particularly in recent
decades, was due in great measure to the fact that it enjoyed large
public moral and material support. The university was a major instru-
ment of democracy, with as much appeal for the Wisconsin farmer as for
the New York garment worker. The new industrialist provided handsomely
for it in his will; the California Legislature in its annual budget.
The university, in a very special sense, belonged to the people; few
institutions commanded greater or wider respect; in few others did
such public confidence reside. The belief in the possibility of
improving life for oneself and for one's children was intimately tied
to the university. The anguish that the public feels about the uni-
versities reflects deep and complex disappointments, with the institu-
tions, obviously, but also with American democracy. In a sense that

- 4 -

too few public officials understand, the university is the pillar on which the modern American democracy rests. If that pillar is weakened, others will fall. The hostile public opinion of this moment, with its call for new punitive legislation, ought not to be heeded. The object of public policy ought to be to convert that opinion. This will be difficult, but it can be done if we do not mistake the causes of our present difficulties. What are these?

A census of university student populations would reveal the following: the overwhelming majority of white men are interested primarily in securing degrees to prepare themselves for specific professions; the overwhelming number of white women are seeking husbands, taking for granted that their place will be in the home, though they may from time to time seek active employ. Superficially, the situation of the 1950's is unchanged. It is only when we begin to examine large minority elements in the student population that differences appear. We note that many hundreds of thousands of young white people -- often the children of men and women distinguished in the professions or in business -- who are to be found in significant numbers in private and state universities, but also in denominational and church-related colleges, do not show much interest in following the career patterns pursued by their successful parents. These young men and women, among the most articulate and best-educated of our students, are rarely involved in any active political rebellion. Their distaste for contemporary American society takes a more subtle form. Photographs communicate their antipathy to American middle-class norms in respect to dress and demeanor, but these are only external and symbolic evidences of a more fundamental hostility. Privileged as few large groups in history have ever been, they are troubled by their privilege. Offered unparalleled opportunities to work in what most adults would think to be creative endeavor, they question the value of such work. Preparing for professions they have often selected in the hope of serving society, they despair of being able to achieve their

- 5 -

purposes. Asking for freedom, and being granted it, they are bewildered
by the sudden absence of structure, authority, and discipline. Dis-
enchanted at a time of life when they ought to be full of hope, they
take pleasure in few things other than the company of their peers.
If their numbers were small -- a hundred thousand perhaps -- they might
be ignored. It is precisely because they are numerous and have such
influence on others, including those prepared to go on as their parents
did, that they merit attention. In this group are to be found the most
creative and intelligent youth of their generation. They pose a chal-
lenge to all of us that we ignore at our peril.

If they are already present in significant numbers in our univer-
sities, there is reason to believe that they will be even more visible
in the years immediately ahead. Those now in tenth, eleventh, and
twelfth grades in school -- from all reports -- will perpetuate and
exaggerate these tendencies. The universities will be hard-pressed to
cope with students of this kind. It is almost certain that new kinds
of institutions of higher learning will need to be developed; curricular
reform will become imperative; various kinds of work-study programs will
be experimented with. All this will require large expenditures of money,
and it is not at all likely that this will come in significant amounts
from private sources. These efforts will put into eclipse the minor
curricular and organizational university reforms that have already taken
place; governmental efforts like Vista and the Peace Corps will seem
"pilot projects" when put beside the new efforts that will need to be
made.

To recognize the romantic idealism of the young and to capitalize
upon it by mobilizing and fashioning new programs to capture and harness
their energies will require continuing cooperation between government
and universities. To fail in this would be to risk leaving a permanently
disaffected and articulate group in American society. Worse still, the
professions risk losing the resourcefulness of young people, upon whom

- 6 -

our future ultimately depends. Active hostility (or mistrust) between
the federal government and the universities would be dangerous at any
time; at no time more than at the present.

What about black students? If the flight of white people from the
city has continued, vastly complicating efforts to achieve integration
on the primary and secondary school levels, private universities, by
contrast, have moved enthusiastically to the task of achieving meaningful integration. While many colleges and universities have made unprecedented efforts to recruit black students from ghetto communities, and to engage black professors, there has been a corresponding pressure by black students to gain admission to publicly-supported universities, without regard to whether conventional entrance requirements were satisfied.
Each of these situations is new; each poses problems for the universities and for the larger society.

The private universities, without securing significant new funding,
have committed themselves to find and support students whom they would
not otherwise have admitted. Believing that a superior education would
permit black men and women to attain new positions in American society,
universities have been quick to reserve a substantial number of university places for black students. This policy has found favor with
faculties and student bodies alike. That the admission of significant
numbers of inadequately prepared students would create a need for various
kinds of remedial teaching and counseling was understood. That this would
be expensive, everyone knew; that few private colleges had any substantial
experience with such programs was also acknowledged. What was not anticipated, however, were the demands that would in fact be put forward by
the new black students. Many of them resisted being assigned to "special"
classes; not at all like the white athletes of yesteryear, who were grateful for being admitted, most black students denied that there was any
reason for special instruction. If there was a need, they argued, it
was for Afro-American studies and for new kinds of racially-segregated
social facilities.

- 7 -

Colleges and universities responded quickly to the first of these
demands. Afro-American programs, hastily conceived, inadequately staffed,
and often of dubious intellectual quality, were instituted. A frantic
search for "black bodies" to administer and teach these courses pro-
ceeded everywhere. A new kind of intellectual and social ghetto was
threatened in some of America's most distinguished universities, and
all that could be said was that the blacks had demanded it and that the
whites had acquiesced. The motivations behind their acquiescence were
complex. Many faculty members and deans believed that programs, poten-
tially significant for the intellectual and personal development of
black and white students alike, would eventuate. They sincerely believed
in the experiment. Others, more cynically and less openly, simply wanted
the blacks out of the way; if this was what they were asking for, they
implied, let them have it. Still others were so fearful of resisting
the militants' demands (fearful in some instances for the physical preser-
vation of the university itself) that they offered the concession without
even asking whether it would benefit students, black or white.

It is still too early to know what the intellectual quality of many
of these programs will be. It is not too early to know that the black
student is being subjected to intense pressure by his contemporaries to
find his intellectual home in such studies and to associate with black
students only. Two years ago, when colleges began to recruit black
students, they did so in the expectation that they would be making a
significant educational contribution in raising up a generation of
competent physicists, biologists, economists, historians, and the like.
The prospect now is for raising up a generation of "black studies special-
ists," and there is still no reason to believe that men and women so
educated will move easily into schools of law, medicine, business or edu-
cation. The colleges started by believing that they could make good the
deficiencies of the high schools; the professional schools may soon have
to undertake to make good the deficiencies of the colleges.

- 8 -

To have ghetto children in the control of black militants is to
create one kind of danger; to have black men and women in their late teens
and early twenties in the control of militant racists on university cam-
puses is to create another kind of danger. Universities will never be
able to serve students whose primary quest is for something called
"identity." Universities that set themselves such a purpose will always
risk becoming training grounds for insurrection. Only if universities
are encouraged to be color-blind, insisting that there are no courses
especially suited to blacks, with others intended for whites, any more
than there are degree programs for Catholics or for Jews, can the larger
purposes of higher education be maintained. Public policy in this matter
must be unambiguous. Federal funds ought not to be used to advance segre-
gation or to promote inferior education, labeled "black." The private
universities of this country have, for good reasons and bad, walked into
a situation from which there is no easy exit. The education of black
students cannot proceed as it has these last years.

The problem in publicly-supported universities, particularly those
located in cities with large black populations, is, if possible, even
more serious. These universities are being besieged by unqualified stu-
dents who demand the right of entry. Again, black studies provides what
many assume will be a safe refuge. There will be engineering schools for
those who are competent; black studies curricula for those who can barely
read. The new kinds of racist feeling (black and white) that are being
spawned by this situation cannot fail to concern every public official.
The new white racism that is developing could seriously hurt the black
community, eventually preventing the integration that the society is
pledged to achieve. The new black racism could threaten the white com-
munity, destroying what little confidence survives, and creating the pos-
sibility of massive race riots.

The universities are being compelled to attempt to do things for
which they are singularly unqualified. Universities cannot survive if
they become the "dumping ground" for large numbers of barely literate

- 9 -

young men and women. The effects will be disastrous for black students
and unfortunate for those who are white and who have no choice but to
attend such institutions. Coming from modest homes, both want nothing
so much as a chance at life, which, for them, means a chance at a pro-
fession. With the new tensions developing on the campus, standards are
almost certain to decline. The meritocratic opportunity that made it
possible for a young person of intelligence and industry to rise, to
force himself on the attention of others without regard to his family
background, will disappear. Both poor whites and blacks stand to lose
by these developments. Again, all this has happened without sufficient
attention being paid to the likely social consequences of policies that
seemed to answer the legitimate demands of black militants.

The problem in the university -- as in the larger society -- is to
detach the young from the black racists before irreparable damage is done
to institutions whose character they scarcely comprehend. The tragedy
of the situation is that the blacks are being cheated by precisely those
who claim to speak for them. The problem is so serious that only a major
intervention by government at the highest level can serve to reestablish
reasonable procedures; perhaps an impartial study by a Presidential Com-
mission, charged with making recommendations concerning the higher edu-
cation of America's black students, would serve to provide the kinds of
reasonable solutions that are so desperately called for. Individual
universities, required to act on their own, are manifestly incapable of
coping with the incendiary potentialities raised by the race issue.

The universities are not comparably disadvantaged when they attempt
to cope with their white "radicals," with those who belong to S.D.S. or
similar organizations. The "radical" is the young man or woman so per-
suaded of his or her beliefs that neither university sanctions nor legal
processes will suffice to prevent his engaging in destructive and illegal
actions. For various complex reasons, there has been no effective system
of university control of student conduct in recent years. University
authorities, rendered impotent by the magnitude of the problems that have

- 10 -

overwhelmed them, are now beginning to understand the nature of student unrest and the need for internal reform. There is no reason to believe that they will not increasingly use their disciplinary powers, since they are so clearly necessary to their institutional survival. This is not to say that all "radical" students will collapse before this exercise of authority. Some will continue to resist. They will become the problem of the larger society, and will have to be dealt with by constituted legal authorities when they in fact violate specific statutes. There is evidence to suggest that the number of white students prepared to carry their "radical" beliefs to this extreme will prove to be small.

Others -- in my view, the greater number of white students who now give serious trouble -- will be found to belong to one of two categories. They will be seen to have been young "toughs," foul-mouthed and lacking in courage, who went along with the game because it was fun, fashionable, and because there was no real resistance to it. Every continental European country has had experience with this kind of young person -- the child of affluence who has resisted authority in the name of virtue so long as it was not dangerous to do so. Ideological beliefs often serve to camouflage what in fact are sadistic and brutal impulses. If the United States has invented anything in this matter, it is that young women are so conspicuous in these ranks.

Finally, there are the ideological "radicals," prepared in principle to fight for their beliefs, but not really suited to any kind of violent action. These students will melt into the general population, some remaining radical all their lives, but never giving the authorities any trouble; others will almost certainly figure in the rightist movements of the 1980's. The story is an old one; there is nothing to suggest that the scenario of the 1930's is not relevant.

A few words are in order about university administrations and faculties. First, a word about presidents, deans, admissions officers, and the like. If an analogous group is looked for outside the university, it may be found among bureau chiefs of departments in the federal government.

- 11 -

They can generally be depended on to carry out traditional responsibilities, but certain kinds of actions ought not to be expected of them. Presidents and deans, for example, are not likely to be effective when confronted with non-negotiable demands from black students. The mayor of an American city expects that he may have to call the police to prevent a demonstration, and that this may well involve casualties. A university president, even today, is not prepared to assume that kind of responsibility. He will be particularly loath to do so if he is white and if the students are black. That situation is not going to change. No amount of exhortation will make it change for any except a few. In most other matters, university administrators are capable of doing about as well as bureau chiefs in Washington; neither more nor less ought to be expected of them. The great problem of the moment is that many who are gifted have doubts about whether they ought to continue, given what their present lives are like. It is not at all impossible that the generation of university administrators in the 1970's will be less distinguished than the present one, when the need, in fact, will be for even more competent men and women. Responsible public officials ought to be especially careful about criticizing these beleaguered people.

As for professors, they are a mixed bag; some are no better than inferior high school teachers; others are gifted and prolific scholars. Relatively few have substantial administrative experience, and almost none have appetite for the kind of disorder that has been occurring. Professors constitute the greatest single resource that the universities possess. If mistaken policies are pursued, the best among them will leave the universities, to assume positions in industry or government, or wherever else they may do their scholarly work without constant harassment. The departure of only a few thousand of the best professors could mean the end of the American university as we have known it.

This is a gloomy report, but not one that tells of a tragedy that has already irrevocably taken place. The next eight years will determine whether or not universities will continue to flourish in this country. If they do not, there will be little cause for celebration in 1976 when America stops to recall the bicentennial of its independence.

MAX ASCOLI

660 MADISON AVENUE
NEW YORK, N.Y. 10021

May 27, 1969

(212) TE 2-8800

Dear Henry:

I am terribly sorry if this thing has given
you any trouble, but I think your trouble would
have been far greater if I had not rudely taken
it out of your hands on Monday of last week.
I am also so presumptuous as to think it may be
more useful to the President, coming out this
way in the only nationwide paper.

But one thing I want to tell you above all,
for you may have been furious with me, and I do
not blame you: please, never forget that I am
your friend.

The Honorable Henry A. Kissinger
The White House
Washington, D. C. 20500

THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON

December 1, 1969

Dear Max:

The solicitors representing Denis Warner have supplied
the Defense Department new information on the status of
the case. This information probably is being sent directly
to you as well, but I wanted to inform you personally of
this development.

It appears that Mr. Burchett has not exerted any pressures
to advance the legal action either in English or Australian
courts. The solicitors indicate that if and when evidence is
needed from witnesses in the U.S., an examiner will be
appointed to collect the depositions. I am enclosing a copy
of their report.

It appears that there is no need for further action here at
this time. I continue to stand ready, of course, to provide
all possible assistance should the situation require it.

Mr. Max Ascoli
660 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10021

J. C. DAHLSEN
B. G. TEAGUE
J. G. WILKIN
D. J. REATTIE
A. W. P. CARVALL

ASSOCIATES:
MARGARET LUSINK
L. D. MC PHERSON
L. D. PHIPPS

CONSULTANT:
F. E. BUNNY

IN REPLY
PLEASE QUOTE

BGT. PW

ADDRESS:
"CORBUN"

TELEX:
30322

[Y.]

Mr. Robert T. Andrews,
Office, Assistant General Counsel
(Manpower and Reserve Affairs),
Department of Defense,
Office of General Counsel,
WASHINGTON, D.C....20301
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

11 November 1969

Dear Sir,

Re Court Proceedings, Wilfred Burchett
against Dennis Warner

We acknowledge receipt of your letter of 24th October and apologise
for the delay in replying thereto.

On 18th February 1969, a Writ was issued out of the Supreme
Court of Victoria by Wilfred Burchett against The Herald and
Weekly Times Limited and Dennis Warner claiming damages for
libel in respect of two articles and a letter published by the
Defendants for both of whom we act.

At the same time that we entered an Appearance on behalf of both
Defendants, we wrote to the Solicitors acting for Burchett and
pointed out that as Burchett did not reside within the jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court of Victoria, we would insist that Burchett
provide security for the Defendants' costs of the action before the
action could be allowed to proceed.

After this demand was made, we were contacted by the Solicitors
acting for Burchett who asked us to refrain from seeking an Order to
require the provision of security for costs pending a determination by
the appropriate authorities as to whether Burchett would be permitted
to come within the jurisdiction of the Court, they having also agreed to
take no further step in the proceedings.

Therefore, the position with respect to the action instituted in Victoria
is that Burchett is unable to proceed until either he is permitted to
return to Australia and does in fact come into Victoria, or he provides
sufficient security for the Defendants' costs of the proceedings.

Mr. Robert T. Andrews,
Office Assistant General Counsel,
(Manpower and Reserve Affairs),
Department of Defense,
Office of General Counsel,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20301,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

11 November 1969

Solicitors in London acting on Burchett's behalf have indicated to us that they have instructions to institute proceedings there against the Herald & Weekly Times Limited and Dennis Warner and in fact, so far as we are aware, no such proceedings have as yet been instituted. We feel that it is highly likely that, apart from any other problems which Burchett's London Solicitors may face, they should be conscious of the difficulty that they may encounter in endeavouring to establish that the alleged libels were published in the United Kingdom.

As the matter now stands, there is not, to our knowledge, any pressure being brought by Burchett or on his behalf to have his claims against Dennis Warner dealt with by the courts either in Victoria or in the United Kingdom. However, Mr. Warner has indicated to us that he has heard indirectly that it is Burchett's intention to press his claims more vigorously in 1970.

Because no proceedings have been instituted in the United Kingdom at the present time and because the proceedings instituted in Victoria have only referred to the nature of the publications alleged to constitute the libels without specifying the respects in which the publications are alleged to be libellous, we cannot be sure of the issues which will be raised in the proceedings and consequently, it is difficult to determine from which persons it would be necessary or desirable for us to approach to give evidence on our clients' behalf.

We contemplate that as soon as steps are taken, either in the United Kingdom or in Victoria, by or on Burchett's behalf to press on to trial, and as soon as the pleadings between the parties have been completed, thus defining the matters in issue, we will communicate with you again seeking your assistance.

In the light of the general comments set out above, we turn to the questions specifically raised by you in your letter.

[Y]

11 November 1969

Mr. Robert T. Andrews,
Office Assistant General Counsel,
(Manpower and Reserve Affairs),
Department of Defense,
Office of General Counsel,
WASHINGTON, D. C., ..., 20301,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

1. Would the British or Australian rules of evidence authorise admission of the official debriefing files of Enoch and Quinn?

We have little doubt that these files would not be admitted as proof of the matters testified to therein. However, it may be that the contents of these files can be introduced as evidence if the procedure referred to in our answer to question 2 is adopted.

2. Is it possible for a deposition of the testimony of Quinn and Enoch to be taken in the United States?

Evidence taken by an examiner appointed pursuant to an Order made upon application to the Supreme Court of Victoria would be admissible as evidence in proceedings instituted in Victoria and a similar procedure would be available if proceedings were instituted by Burchett in the United Kingdom. Such evidence would be taken in the United States by an appropriate examiner before whom the witnesses would be examined and cross-examined by Counsel representing the parties to the proceedings.

3. Is some other procedure more desirable?

There can be no doubt that from the point of view of the court which is determining the matters in dispute, the most desirable procedure is to have all relevant witnesses examined orally before it. Before the Supreme Court of Victoria would make an Order that witnesses be examined out of the jurisdiction, the court would have to be satisfied that the witness concerned is unwilling to travel to Victoria to give evidence. However, from the point of view of the costs involved and from the point of view of saving inconvenience to witnesses, we have little doubt that if and when it does become necessary to obtain evidence from witnesses who are resident in the United States of America, this would be done by way of appointing an examiner.

4. Are there any military or former military personnel other than Messrs. Quinn and Enoch whose testimony or statements we intend to seek?

We could not properly answer this question until after the issues in the proceedings instituted by Burchett have been defined and until after we have discussed with Mr. Warner, the question of which witnesses it would be necessary or desirable to call to give evidence concerning such issues.

Mr. Robert T. Andrews,
Office Assistant General Counsel,
(Manpower and Reserve Powers),
Department of Defense,
Office of General Counsel,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20301
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

11 November 1969

5 Where is it presently anticipated that the trial will be held?
We shall be using every endeavour to see that the trial is
held in Victoria.

6 In the event that the case is tried in London, will we represent Mr. Warner in the proceedings?
We would be appointing agents in London to act as the solicitors on record but contemplate that most of the preparation of the defence would be dealt with by us. We have not as yet appointed agents in London to act as our agents because no proceedings have as yet been instituted in the United Kingdom.

In conclusion, may we express our appreciation for your offer of
assistance and may we again apologise for the delay in replying to
your letter.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20501

November 18, 1969

MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. Friedheim, DASD(PA)
Mr. Kramer, White House
General Haig, White House
Colonel Pursley, OSD
Capt. Thornton, OASD(ISA)
Maj. Butler, AFJAG

SUBJECT: Court Proceedings Wilfred Burchett v. Denis Warner

Reference is made to the libel action filed against Denis Warner by Wilfred Burchett, an Australian correspondent, and the defendant's request that the Department assist in the production of witnesses and records.

Recent correspondence from Corr and Corr, Solicitors, Melbourne, Australia, representing Denis Warner, advises that, to their knowledge, no pressure is being brought at the present time by Burchett to litigate his claims against the defendant either in the Australian or in the English courts.

Further, since no proceedings have been instituted in England, and because the Australian proceedings have not specified the respects in which the Warner publications are alleged to have libeled Burchett, Corr and Corr cannot at this time ascertain the issues which may be raised. Therefore, it is not now possible to determine from which persons it would be necessary or desirable to approach to give evidence on Warner's behalf. Consequently, until such time as these matters are clarified and Corr and Corr seek further assistance from this office, efforts to marshal evidence and make witnesses available would be neither profitable nor helpful.

MEMORANDUM

THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON

November 20, 1969

MEMORANDUM FOR DR. KISSINGER

THROUGH: Tony La
FROM: Dolf Droge

SUBJECT: Situation Report on Warner-Burchett Law Suit

A Department of Defense memorandum of November 18 (Tab B) from Robert T. Andrews, Office of the Assistance General Counsel reports on recent correspondence with Corr and Corr, the Solicitors handling Mr. Warner's defense in Melbourne, Australia. A copy of the Solicitors' report is at Tab C.

The report advises that 1) At the present time no pressure is being brought by Mr. Burchett to litigate his claims against Mr. Warner either in the English or Australian courts. 2) No proceedings have been instituted in England, and the Australian proceeding have not specified the precise respects in which Warner is alleged to have libeled Burchett. 3) This makes it impossible to determine whose testimony (e. g. ex-POWs Quinn and Enoch etc.) will be required. 4) If such testimony is necessary, the Solicitors indicate that an examiner will be appointed to take the depositions.

The DOD recommends that no further action be taken on the Quinn-Enoch testimony at this time.

A letter to Mr. Ascoli has been prepared informing him of the Solicitors' report, enclosing a copy of the report, and pledging assistance if the situation changes. (TAB C)

RECOMMENDATION:

That you sign the letter to Mr. Ascoli at Tab A.

THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON

November 20, 1969

MEMORANDUM FOR TONY LAKE

FROM: Dolf Droge

Attached is a draft memo to Dr. Kissinger and a draft letter to Max Ascoli for Dr. Kissinger's signature re the Denis Warner-Wilfred Burchett case. The Defense Department and Melbourne Attorneys' reports are submitted as enclosures. Burchett is readying a book for publication which will include a chapter on "Germ Warfare" and may well reopen the content of Quinn and Enoch's POW depositions in the public forum outside the boundaries of the Warner case. This may also eventually affect the logic of DOD's present stance opposing the release of the Quinn and Enoch transcript. It is a case of wait and see.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20301

November 18, 1969

2

Corr and Corr indicate that, if and when it does become necessary to obtain evidence from witnesses who are resident in the United States, this will be done by way of appointing an examiner and taking their depositions.

For your information copies of the reply from Warner's attorneys responding to legal procedure questions posed by this office are attached. It is requested that Public Affairs advise Mrs. Shirley Katzander and Mr. Max Ascoli of the above, and of the Corr and Corr letter.

Robert T. Andrews
Office, Assistant General
Counsel (M&RA)

Attachment

SK

A SUMMARY OF THE DENIS WARNER-WILFRED BURCHETT CASE

In the June 1, 1967, issue of The Reporter, Denis Warner, then correspondent in Southeast Asia for The Reporter, wrote, at the urging of Max Ascoli, an article entitled "Who Is Wilfred Burchett?". In it, Warner identified Burchett as a longtime Communist propagandist.

In the article, Warner said Burchett was not only propagandist for Hanoi but was also acting as its "press officer," passing on visa requests submitted by Western journalists, especially Americans, who wanted to go to Hanoi. According to Warner, Burchett kept a base of operations in Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

Subsequently, Warner wrote another article about Burchett for the Melbourne (Australia) Herald, which is also distributed in London, England. In that article, Warner accused Burchett of having been a member of a Communist interrogation group that forced captive American airmen to confess to germ warfare. He specifically quoted an airman—O'Neal.

In February 1969, Warner wrote Max Ascoli seeking his help because Burchett had filed a libel suit against Warner, and the Herald, in Melbourne and London. Warner asked Ascoli's help in locating two former captive U.S. airmen who had "confessed." They are former AF Lt Kenneth Lloyd Enoch and Lt Col John S. Quinn. Warner asked Ascoli's help in locating the two men so that they could either testify in court to Burchett's activity or make new depositions, before a "legal commission," to the effect that Burchett had been part of the Communist interrogation group.

It was then that I called Col Rodger R. Bankson, Director of Defense Information, working for Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs Daniel Henkin. Col Bankson telephoned within 24 hours to give me the addresses of Enoch and Quinn, placing Enoch in Youngstown, Ohio, and Quinn in Plattsburgh, New York. Since Warner's lawyers in Australia were reluctant to be in immediate touch with the men, we did not pursue them. In late August, however, after fruitless attempts via Col Bankson, Assistant Secretary Henkin, John Stuart (Press Officer of the U.S. Mission to the United Nations), and others to obtain information and documentation on Burchett's activities among American POWs, we decided to go ahead and try to make contact with Quinn and Enoch. Col Bankson had previously said that he believed Enoch was still on active duty at Wright-Patterson AFB. As it turned out, Enoch was no longer in the service; Quinn, now Lt Col John S. Quinn, is stationed at Wright-Patterson.

The initial attempt to reach the men resulted in learning that although there were a number of Quinn's in Plattsburgh, N.Y., some of whom had served in the Armed Forces, none of them was the Quinn we sought. There was no Enoch listed in the telephone directory at Youngstown, Ohio, and no officer named Enoch at Wright-Patterson AFB.

(During these months, we also learned that a "Burchett Passport Committee" had been formed in Melbourne and was circulating a petition worldwide for eventual presentation to the Australian Parliament. Burchett had not been back in his native land of Australia for 15 years; his government has thus far refused to issue him a passport. He fears he will be arrested on return. The petition circulated by the Burchett Passport Committee states that his constitutional rights are being breached. Signers of the document, which was finally presented to Parliament August 13, 1969, include Bertrand Russell, Linus Pauling, Mary McCarthy, Norman Mailer, Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, Edgar Snow, Arthur Miller, etc.)

-more-

(L)

SK-2

(Also during this time, we learned that Burchett had written a new book now circulating among publishers around the world. We obtained a copy of a chapter of the manuscript; the chapter on germ warfare which goes into some detail on airmen who "confessed" to germ warfare. Burchett is today listed as "staff correspondent" of the U.S. Communist weekly *Guardian*. Two recent articles in the *Guardian* spell out the activity by him and for him. On July 19, 1969, the *Guardian* printed a report on the Burchett Passport Committee. On August 2, 1969, the *Guardian* published a dispatch by Burchett from Paris, a rehash of his "memories" of discovering "evidence" of American germ warfare in North Korea. Burchett has also been a correspondent for the French Communist dailies *Ce Soir* and *L'Humanité*. His dispatches are sometimes distributed in the U.S. by the Associated Press and published by, among others, *The New York Times*.)

Not having found either Quinn or Enoch, I went back to Col Bankson asking him to find the addresses of the men as well as those of two others: Col Walker M. Mahurin and Lt Floyd B. O'Neal. This was in August 1969. Almost a month later, and after repeated calls to Col Bankson and to John Stuart, Col Bankson came up with the addresses -- those of Mahurin and Enoch. Two weeks later, I received a letter from Col Bankson with addresses for Enoch, Quinn, O'Neal, Mahurin. Following is what happened when I called the men:

1. *Kenneth Lloyd Enoch* lives in Houston, Texas, at 1010 Bethlehem Street, Phone (613) 686-5027. He is employed as an electrical engineer, and was on a trip for business purposes when I called. I explained part of my mission to Mrs. Enoch, his wife, and called two days later on his return, Saturday, September 6.

Mr. Enoch was soft-spoken, seemed most reluctant to discuss the matter. I tried to be as kind as possible, and apologized for breaching the painful subject, and then asked if he had known Burchett and if the latter had interrogated him. We talked perhaps half an hour in which Enoch said he had seen Burchett "maybe 5 or 6 times" when the latter was "more or less visiting." It was "like he said how de do" and was "just visiting around." He said Burchett had "visited" after he, Enoch, had signed his statement on germ warfare. He wnet on to say that "maybe" Warner accused Burchett of something Burchett had not done.

I told Enoch I would like to send him a copy of the chapter from the manuscript now circulating and it was then, after perhaps 20 minutes of talking, that I learned that Warner's letter to Enoch seeking help and sent this past August, had reached Enoch; that Enoch had already read the chapter and knew precisely what I was talking about before I called, but did not tell me he knew.

I asked him if he had replied to the Warner letter. "I hate like heck to write letters," he said, adding that he did not want to be "curt" or "abrupt" and "tell a man I can't do him any good." "I couldn't give him an answer like he really wanted," Enoch said. I found it curious indeed that he had let me talk on, explaining the reason for my call without volunteering that he knew all about it. He repeated that he had "tried" hard to remember the details, to see if he had forgot anything that could be of help, but could not come up with pertinent information.

-more-

SK--3.

(19)

2. Col Walker M. Mahurin, Air Force Reserve, now sales and marketing vice president for the Space Systems Division, North American Rockwell Corp., in Downey, California.
His business address:

12214 Lakewood Blvd.
Downey, Calif. 90241
Phone: (213) - 923-8111

HOME:

2641 Bayshore Drive
Newport Beach, Calif.

Phone: (714) 548-8396

Mahurin is the author of "Honest John," an account of his experiences in a North Korean camp where he was kept in isolation and finally signed a "confession" to germ warfare.

Publisher: G. P. Putnam, 1963.

I talked with Mahurin Sept. 4, 1969, before talking with Enoch. He was gung-ho, calling Burchett a "vicious man" whom he had met three days before repatriation at Panmunjon. He said the U.S. behaved badly toward PWs such as he, not preparing them for brainwashing techniques and then damning them for submitting when they returned to the U.S. Look at the crew of the Pueblo, he said. He had "confessed" and had been pressured by the English journalist Alan Winnington.

He went on to say he was President of the Fighter Pilots Association and published a bulletin, or small magazine, which went to members, ~~a number of Congressmen.~~
If I wanted him to do a story on this situation, he would be pleased to do so. He urged me to read "Honest John" and added that he had neither a copy of the book nor a manuscript.
But he said he would do everything he could to help nail Burchett and since he frequently was East on trips, he would call me when he came to New York. I sent him background material on the case.

A week and a half later, Col Mahurin called me at my office to say he was in Washington, was coming to New York, en route to Boston, and would call on arrival. I was in Chicago that day (Sept. 10), but my secretary took the message. I waited most of Thursday, Sept. 11, in my office for his call. When it did not come, I called his California office, got his Washington office number. When I spoke with him, he said he would be in New York City that evening, and would call me without fail. He did not call. I called him Friday in Boston, but although he sent word via a secretary that he was aware of my message and would be in touch with me, he did not call. On Sept. 15, I called his California office which told me he was in Washington, having left that morning. In Washington, I was told that he had returned to California and was not expected. The change in Mahurin was rapid and extreme.

3. Lt Col John S. Quinn, now at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, Phone: (513) 255-4023. There are two men of this name and rank. The first was the wrong one; the second was the John Quinn we have been seeking. Col Quinn, obviously distressed by my call, was very nervous and asked me to wait a moment before talking. Perhaps he closed a door. I explained why I called, and at great length, and then read the paragraph from the Burchett chapter citing Quinn's speaking of his "shame" in his country, the U.S. After a prolonged silence, I asked him if Burchett were telling the truth. He replied: "No comment." I asked if he had been coerced by Burchett and explained we needed his help, that the case was now more than that of one man but of showing Burchett up for what he is -- an enemy. Quinn said, "For many personal reasons, reasons that I don't care to go into, I'm going to have to decline. I would hope this is really final. I would hope to put period to the whole thing."

He seemed subdued, indeed frightened, ~~but~~ *remarked* that I was sorry that he felt as he did, he flared for the only time to say, "You don't know how I feel." He went on to say

-more-

SK-4

that "I'm still in the service" as an indication of his feelings. I tried to reassure him, saying that no one questioned his patriotism or his loyalty and he finally said, "I've thought about this at great length. I don't want to go where can of worms." I then asked him, since he had been thinking about it, if he had been approached previously by someone else about the Burchett question. His answer was, "I'd rather not make any comment" on that. That was the end of the conversation.

One peculiarity of it was that when I identified myself, it was as "Shirley Katzander calling from New York." My name is quite difficult for most people to understand on first hearing. He semed to know the name and be familiar with it; kept calling me "Mrs. Katzander." I had not identified myself that way. He also obviously knew what it was all about, for there were no questions of any kind, just a stony silence as I talked into the vacuum -- beginning and end.

4. I was also given an address in Fairfax, South Carolina, for a former AF Lt Floyd B. O'Neal, who is no longer in service and in Augusta, Ga., head of the Chemistry Department at the University of Georgia. His phone: (404) 738-3438. He was not in when I called and his wife, when I called, asked if he had been a North Korean captive, asked fearfully why I was calling. I explained to her and she spoke at length of what she and O'Neal had been through. They were engaged at the time of his capture. She said, "I fought for him then and I had to fight for him on his return." It is her feeling that the government treats badly men who suffered physical and mental torture by the Communists, including the Pueblo crew. She spoke disdainfully of the "protesters and rioters who burn the flag." She said they made her feel like "rioting herself against them." She added that she would hate to see this tale dredged up again, and her husband -- a wonderful, dedicated teacher and a wonderful husband and father -- put through another siege of it; but if it would help to expose Burchett or anyone else, she was all for it.

When I called O'Neal, he said he could not remember Burchett. In the chapter of the book, Burchett talks of Paul Kniss whose story about germ warfare, Burchett claims, tallied with one recited by O'Neal. Burchett does not say, however, that he talked with O'Neal. O'Neal said of Burchett, "I can't place him precisely. The name has no particular meaning for me. A great many of these things are hazy to me. I've tried to bury it all. Absolutey no names, nothing comes up now."

I described Burchett and Alan Winnington as Australian and British journalists respectively, white, etc. But it seemed to mean nothing. O'Neal continued to repeat my name (I had given it, spelled it to his wife), and then he asked me to spell it for him. He was very hesitant, his speech frequently punctuated by "mamá." When I told him what Burchett had been up to, he said, "If this man was one of those people (allies of the North Korean Communists), I hope you can prove it. He took my name and telephone numbers.

SK-5

NOTE I -- Col Bankson, "explaining the delay" in getting the new addresses, said that active men in the forces are on a computer and easy to run down, but that those no longer in the service are in the "dead records" office in St. Louis and one must pull them out by hand. Because there are hundreds of requests, the last in go to the bottom. Finally, he said, he had someone pull them out for us.

Quinn, however, is on active duty, presumably on the AF computer. His last name given us. Bankson's letter today once again gave Enoch's address as Youngstown, although only a week and a half ago, he gave me the Houston address over the telephone.

NOTE II - Bankson has said the Pentagon has been trying to do what it could to search for documentation on statements made by returning airmen. We have depositions by Enoch and Quinn which make no mention of Burchett. Yet, in a statement to the UN during the inquiry on germ warfare charges, the U.S. Alternate Dr. Charles Mayo said in October 1954 that there was evidence to show that Burchett and Winnington went beyond their roles as journalists with the POWs. That evidence, allegedly searched for in Defense, State, Air Force archives, is nowhere to be found.

NOTE III- At one point last May-June, John Stuart, the press officer, told me that someone had been in touch with Enoch and Quinn and they were willing, indeed eager, to testify against Burchett. When I asked who had been in touch, he said "Bankson." But Col Bankson when I asked him, said he had not been in touch with the men nor knew of anyone who had. Stuart, a few months later, felt certain it was Bankson but had nothing to show that anyone at all had talked with Quinn and Enoch.

NOTE IV - I have tried to interest the press in the question, not so much the libel suit but the activity to whitewash Burchett and obtain a passport for him by pressuring the Australians. No one has responded. I was in touch with the N.Y. Times, Washington Post, Louisville Courier-Journal, L.A. Times, Time, Newsweek, and CBS. At the latter, I am told, a TV documentary producer is himself in touch with Burchett on a hush-hush project.